Allen is NOT inaccurate unless Baker, Lamar, Darnold, Rosen, 2017 Watson & 2016 Wentz are, too

[Foxx]

5 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

I don't really feel like arguing the semantics of the meanings of a word. ...

accuracy/precision

[oldmanfan]

7 minutes ago, Foxx said:

accuracy/precision

That's not semantics; there's a real difference

Edited January 18, 2019 by oldmanfan

[Shaw66]

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Indeed. But they took 3 players at the same position and it was the last of those 3 who found success. 

It's not "but."  That's like saying "you bought three lottery tickets, but the last one was the winner."   The whole point was that if you're finding players at the bottom of the draft and free agency, it's a crap shoot.  The only evaluation of GM decision making that can be made about players taken under those circumstances is whether his yield - the percentage of guys who stick - is good or not.   It makes no difference which guys were taken first or last - all that matters is whether your GM is finding enough guys there.  

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

It's not "but."  That's like saying "you bought three lottery tickets, but the last one was the winner."   The whole point was that if you're finding players at the bottom of the draft and free agency, it's a crap shoot.  The only evaluation of GM decision making that can be made about players taken under those circumstances is whether his yield - the percentage of guys who stick - is good or not.   It makes no difference which guys were taken first or last - all that matters is whether your GM is finding enough guys there.  

 

And eventually they got there. I didn't like either pick - Ray Ray or Proehl. Wasted picks.

[transplantbillsfan]

4 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

That's not semantics; there's a real difference

 

I understand that. I was never talking precision, I was talking accuracy in relation to the 4 other rookies who don't have the same narrative as being inaccurate.

 

Maybe Allen is inaccurate. 

 

If he is, so are the rest of the rookies.

 

 

But as to precision, I think people are unrealistic about what NFL precision for really good QBs are. 

 

Drew Brees is an absolute freak when it comes to accuracy and precision, but even he will miss throws.

 

So according to that diagram you guys were pointing to earlier, his diagram might have 20 red dots on the bullseye and maybe 3 on the fringes.

 

Is that still precise?

 

What if it were 15 on the bullseye and 2 on the fringes?

 

13 and 2?

 

11 and 2?

 

At what point does it become precise?

 

Allen can and has made precise throws. 

 

And on the flip side, Brees, Brady and Rodgers make imprecise, even wildly inaccurate throws.

 

If you're to trust these numbers are accurate, look who's #3 and #4

Yet, Brady and Rodgers are precision passers?

 

I want Allen to be more precise, but he's never going to be a precision passer, especially by the definition you guys are focused on. But he doesn't have to be a precision passer to be a good, great or even HOF worthy QB. He just needs to be accurate.

[Shaw66]

4 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

That's not semantics; there's a real difference

You know, old man, I like words and I like precision, and I like precision in the use of words.   You and some others get off on this accuracy versus precision distinction every once in a while, and I sometimes pay attention to it.  

 

However, in my mind it's a distinction without any real significance.   I get that there's a difference - I think Brees is both accurate and precise, some guys are accurate and not precise and some may be precise but not accurate (although I doubt there are many of those).   

 

The point is that I seriously doubt that some coach in Buffalo is saying "we need to work on Allen's accuracy" and some other coach is saying "no, we need to work on his precision."   I think both coaches are looking at the same film of the same play and agreeing that the ball wasn't in as good a spot as they would prefer and then looking at the film to see if they can determine what it is that Allen needs to work on to get the ball in the right spot as often as possible.   It's not like they say "well, if he has an accuracy problem he needs to fix this and if he has a precision problem he needs to fix that."   For them, it's just semantics that doesn't add to the conversation.   They're just asking themselves what needs to be done to make Allen better.  

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

You know, old man, I like words and I like precision, and I like precision in the use of words.   You and some others get off on this accuracy versus precision distinction every once in a while, and I sometimes pay attention to it.  

 

However, in my mind it's a distinction without any real significance.   I get that there's a difference - I think Brees is both accurate and precise, some guys are accurate and not precise and some may be precise but not accurate (although I doubt there are many of those).   

 

The point is that I seriously doubt that some coach in Buffalo is saying "we need to work on Allen's accuracy" and some other coach is saying "no, we need to work on his precision."   I think both coaches are looking at the same film of the same play and agreeing that the ball wasn't in as good a spot as they would prefer and then looking at the film to see if they can determine what it is that Allen needs to work on to get the ball in the right spot as often as possible.   It's not like they say "well, if he has an accuracy problem he needs to fix this and if he has a precision problem he needs to fix that."   For them, it's just semantics that doesn't add to the conversation.   They're just asking themselves what needs to be done to make Allen better.  

 

i just ignore oldman, it's not worth it

 

dithering and nitpicking over everything...

 

 

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I understand that. I was never talking precision, I was talking accuracy in relation to the 4 other rookies who don't have the same narrative as being inaccurate.

 

Maybe Allen is inaccurate. 

 

If he is, so are the rest of the rookies.

 

 

But as to precision, I think people are unrealistic about what NFL precision for really good QBs are. 

 

Drew Brees is an absolute freak when it comes to accuracy and precision, but even he will miss throws.

 

So according to that diagram you guys were pointing to earlier, his diagram might have 20 red dots on the bullseye and maybe 3 on the fringes.

 

Is that still precise?

 

What if it were 15 on the bullseye and 2 on the fringes?

 

13 and 2?

 

11 and 2?

 

At what point does it become precise?

 

Allen can and has made precise throws. 

 

And on the flip side, Brees, Brady and Rodgers make imprecise, even wildly inaccurate throws.

 

If you're to trust these numbers are accurate, look who's #3 and #4

Yet, Brady and Rodgers are precision passers?

 

I want Allen to be more precise, but he's never going to be a precision passer, especially by the definition you guys are focused on. But he doesn't have to be a precision passer to be a good, great or even HOF worthy QB. He just needs to be accurate.

Don't mistake my comments on precision and accuracy to mean I disagree with your OP.  I actually agree.  Allen is accurate in my opinion.  and I applaud the work you've done here.  I did something similar with a game or two after his injury, went back and looked at how many passes I truly thought were inaccurate, and it wasn't many.

 

It comes down to your definition of accurate.  Accuracy is how close to a reference value you come.  If you're looking at, say , a lab test, it's measured by standard deviation.  For a passer you define it by how close to his target.  So for your analysis, you chose criteria that seem valid to me.  So let's say for sake of argument hitting a guy on the numbers in the target, and the border of his catch radius is two standard deviations.  If he hits the guy on the hands, but not right on the numbers, he's accurate.  And I agree with you that's the way to look at it, and presuming you were diligent in your analysis between QBs, which I think you were, then Allen is as good as the other rookies.  When I speak of precision, it's how many times you hit a specific spot.  So let's say Allen wanted to hit a guy in the numbers, but he hits them outside that, his precision was off.

 

The guys arguing against you do so because they have a faulty view of accuracy.  They think you have to hit a pass right where you want to hit it to be accurate.  To extrapolate to a lab test, accuracy would have to be within say 0.1 SDs.  You'd go broke trying to run a lab that way because that expectation is completely off base. You'd never accept a test as normal, and again to extrapolate you'd never see Allen (or any other QB) as accurate if that's the measure you'd judge by.

 

Your analysis is fine.  And one can only hope folks look at accuracy as accuracy and not completion percentage, because that dog just don't hunt.

[Shaw66]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

And eventually they got there. I didn't like either pick - Ray Ray or Proehl. Wasted picks.

Sure, they're wasted picks if you look at it that way.   But the point people were making was that at that point in the draft MOST picks turn out to be wasted picks, because the guys you're choosing from haven't shown enough to them as NFL starters.   They ALL look like they aren't going to make it.   None of those receivers looked like Larry FItagerald or Julio Jones or even Robert Woods and Zay Jones in college.   None of them.   

 

I don't know the rules of craps, but saying Proehl and Ray were wasted picks is like saying some rolls of the dice were wasted rolls, because you didn't win anything on them.   

 

That's why I say one measure of a GM's success is his YIELD on all those picks at the end of the draft.   Some organizations are better finding players at the end of the draft and among the undrafted who actually can contribute to the team.   But they'd admit quickly that although they might be able to see HOW it was possible for them to contribute, they aren't very good at prediction WHETHER they'll contribute.   They just don't know.   

 

The point is that the idea of "wasted picks" isn't real.   At the time, it is not at all obvious that a pick is wasted or that some other player would have been a better pick.   No one knows, and calling it a "wasted" pick suggests that someone might have known better.  

 

At the top of the draft, the concept of a wasted pick makes more sense.   Taking TJ Graham instead of Russell Wilson in the third round was a wasted pick.   Because of the positions they played, it was knowable that WIlson had the potential to improve the team more than Graham.   That is, no matter what Graham could accomplish, it wasn't likely he'd change the course of the franchise.  With Wilson it was possible.   So that pick was wasted. 

 

But in the 6th round, you aren't looking at guys who have any real likelihood of changing the course of your franchise.   Granted, Brady was there and did exactly that, but he didn't look like he had any chance of success.   He didn't look anything like Wilson, for example.   

 

It's a crap shoot. 

[oldmanfan]

10 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

You know, old man, I like words and I like precision, and I like precision in the use of words.   You and some others get off on this accuracy versus precision distinction every once in a while, and I sometimes pay attention to it.  

 

However, in my mind it's a distinction without any real significance.   I get that there's a difference - I think Brees is both accurate and precise, some guys are accurate and not precise and some may be precise but not accurate (although I doubt there are many of those).   

 

The point is that I seriously doubt that some coach in Buffalo is saying "we need to work on Allen's accuracy" and some other coach is saying "no, we need to work on his precision."   I think both coaches are looking at the same film of the same play and agreeing that the ball wasn't in as good a spot as they would prefer and then looking at the film to see if they can determine what it is that Allen needs to work on to get the ball in the right spot as often as possible.   It's not like they say "well, if he has an accuracy problem he needs to fix this and if he has a precision problem he needs to fix that."   For them, it's just semantics that doesn't add to the conversation.   They're just asking themselves what needs to be done to make Allen better.  

See my above comments to transplant.  I think Allen needs to work on precision, or putting the ball on a specific spot, more because that would allow receivers to make more yards after the catch and so on.  I think his accuracy is fine, but the really great ones like Brees  are highly accurate and can put the throw within that accuracy range right on the money., right where they want it.  When folks talk about fitting a ball into a tight window, to me you have to be really precise.  So from that perspective I think there is significance.

 

I support the view of the OP.  Hope this clarifies my thoughts.

13 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

i just ignore oldman, it's not worth it

 

dithering and nitpicking over everything...

 

 

If you ignore me, then why are you commenting?  The distinction is real and can have effects not only in medicine but in hitting specific targets. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Sure, they're wasted picks if you look at it that way.   But the point people were making was that at that point in the draft MOST picks turn out to be wasted picks, because the guys you're choosing from haven't shown enough to them as NFL starters.   They ALL look like they aren't going to make it.   None of those receivers looked like Larry FItagerald or Julio Jones or even Robert Woods and Zay Jones in college.   None of them.   

 

I don't know the rules of craps, but saying Proehl and Ray were wasted picks is like saying some rolls of the dice were wasted rolls, because you didn't win anything on them.   

 

That's why I say one measure of a GM's success is his YIELD on all those picks at the end of the draft.   Some organizations are better finding players at the end of the draft and among the undrafted who actually can contribute to the team.   But they'd admit quickly that although they might be able to see HOW it was possible for them to contribute, they aren't very good at prediction WHETHER they'll contribute.   They just don't know.   

 

The point is that the idea of "wasted picks" isn't real.   At the time, it is not at all obvious that a pick is wasted or that some other player would have been a better pick.   No one knows, and calling it a "wasted" pick suggests that someone might have known better.  

 

At the top of the draft, the concept of a wasted pick makes more sense.   Taking TJ Graham instead of Russell Wilson in the third round was a wasted pick.   Because of the positions they played, it was knowable that WIlson had the potential to improve the team more than Graham.   That is, no matter what Graham could accomplish, it wasn't likely he'd change the course of the franchise.  With Wilson it was possible.   So that pick was wasted. 

 

But in the 6th round, you aren't looking at guys who have any real likelihood of changing the course of your franchise.   Granted, Brady was there and did exactly that, but he didn't look like he had any chance of success.   He didn't look anything like Wilson, for example.   

 

It's a crap shoot. 

Not speaking for GB, but I felt they were wasted picks because they were redundant with what we already had from a skillset standpoint. When the receiver you took in the second last year is clearly best suited for the slot there's no need to take fliers on more slot guys. To modify your original analogy, I saw the Ray Ray and Proehl picks as already having a lotto ticket, and buying 2 more with the same numbers on them.

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

It's a crap shoot. 

 

And that, good sir, is where we disagree. I don't ever think it is a crap shoot. It always comes down to talent evaluation. Is it much harder in the 6th and 7th rounds? Sure it is. All those guys have flaws somewhere that is why they are still on the board at that stage. But when Geronimo Allison and Robby Anderson are still on the board then picking Kolb Listenbee is not just bad luck because it is a crapshoot - it is bad talent evaluation. Picking Austin Proehl over Foster or the USC kid the Jets signed as an UDFA.... is also bad talent evaluation.

 

These are not huge mistakes that I think people should demand firings over.... but it still means they have got it wrong.

9 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Not speaking for GB, but I felt they were wasted picks because they were redundant with what we already had from a skillset standpoint. When the receiver you took in the second last year is clearly best suited for the slot there's no need to take fliers on more slot guys. To modify your original analogy, I saw the Ray Ray and Proehl picks as already having a lotto ticket, and buying 2 more with the same numbers on them.

 

A very valid point.

[oldmanfan]

Just to be even nerdier about the OP's analysis, let's talk about what the sources of problems might be when Allen is not accurate.  You have two types of error:  systematic and random.  Systematic means you have a consistent problem with your measurement system that biases results in a certain way.  So let's say your bathroom scale is actually at 5 pounds when it should read zero.  That is systematic and generally affects accuracy of measurements.

 

So for Allen to improve his accuracy, is there a systematic error that can be corrected?  Possibly, that may be where consistent footwork and release point when throwing could come in.

 

The other source of error is random error.  That is truly random and are out of control of the measurement system, and in lab tests, etc. these generally affect precision.    There are a number of those that could affect a pass, the wind, whether a guy ran the right route, etc.

 

Just more nerdy things to ponder when looking at the kid's development.  I think there are some sources of systematic error he can fix, like throwing short passes with more touch.   The random errors could be fixed, for example, by having WRs that actually catch the ball vs. drop it.

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

A very valid point.

It's why people harp on ESB. Not because he was amazing this year or anything, but because he was big and fast. Something missing from our WRs at the time.

[racketmaster]

This was brought up somewhere in the thread about breaking down individual games. It is an exhaustive task and I commend the OP for the extremely time consuming task of going through every pass from every rookie qb in 2018. I have watched all of Allen’s games at least once and usually 2-3 times but have only seen about 3-4 games of each of the other 4 rookies. In general, Bills fans see the “good” and the “bad” of their quarterback much more than other quarterbacks around the league. We are all mostly caught up in trying to figure out if our quarterback is going to be good or not. The evaluations on Allen have been endless but I think it is worth our time for us all to take a break from Allen and intensely scrutinize the other rookie quarterbacks. I just decided to take a closer look at Baker Mayfield first. Why, because he is generally held up as the gold standard for the 2018 rookie quarterback class. I have watch 4 of his games this year from beginning to end but took week 17 because it is easily found on youtube for anyone to watch every throw from that game (to have your own opinion). It is also the last game and should show some growth from the first game he played.

Anyway, I did a play by play analysis of each throw by Baker in this game. I tried to keep it simple and had 5 categories (Outstanding, Very Good, Good, Bad and Very Bad). They are relatively self-explanatory but here is a little more about each of them:

Outstanding: An elite throw involving tremendous accuracy and increased by the difficulty of the throw (depth of target, off platform, being pressured etc.) It is a WOW throw.

Very Good: This is an excellent play that is anything but routine (shows some combination of accuracy and difficulty).

Good: These are just general routinely accurate throws. Plays a quarterback should generally make even if it means extending a play and throwing it out of bounds to avoid a sack.

Bad: These are generally slightly inaccurate throws or passes forced to targets that are covered.

Very Bad: Inaccurate passes or forced into coverage where there was no chance of a completion. Head scratching inaccuracy or decision making usually resulting in turnovers.

That is just the way I decided to look at it and each person will have their own preferred definitions and categories. But I tried to keep it simple. So here is the play by play below and anyone of you can go back and argue the rating if you are so inclined.

BROWNS V. RAVENS WEEK 17:

o   2nd & 5 at BAL 42

(13:01 - 1st) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass short left intended for A.Callaway INTERCEPTED – (VERY BAD) Poor wobbly throw off back foot right in which defender easily steps in front of wr to intercept.

o   2nd & 6 at CLE 29

(8:59 - 1st) (No Huddle, Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete short right to D.Johnson. (BAD) – Inaccurate quick thro over the head of target – made worse is that he failed to see Calloway wide open in middle of field.

o   3rd & 6 at CLE 29

(8:55 - 1st) (No Huddle, Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass deep right to A.Callaway ran ob at BLT 33 for 38 yards. (OUTSTANDING) Shows patience and keeps eyes downfield making a very accurate deep throw.

o   1st & 5 at BAL 28

(8:22 - 1st) Breshad Perriman Pass From Baker Mayfield for 28 Yds. (VERY GOOD) Great recognition and a nice pass dropping it over defenders to wr for TD.

 

o   3rd & 5 at CLE 30

(13:24 - 2nd) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass deep right to A.Callaway pushed ob at CLV 49 for 19 yards (B.Carr). (VERY GOOD) Nice pass dropping into the bucket down sideline to wr.

o   1st & 10 at CLE 49

(13:04 - 2nd) (No Huddle, Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass short middle to D.Johnson to BLT 48 for 3 yards (B.Urban). (GOOD) Short accurate dump off pass to rb

o   2nd & 7 at BAL 48

(12:41 - 2nd) (No Huddle, Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete short left to R.Higgins. (BAD) Pressure coming and makes inaccurate throw about 7 yards away from target – with high mobility he may have been able to make defender miss and extend play

o   3rd & 7 at BAL 48

(12:37 - 2nd) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete short left to J.Landry. (BAD) Steps up in pocket but makes an inaccurate throw that is high and behind wr who was open.

o    

o   1st & 10 at CLE 10

(6:06 - 2nd) B.Mayfield pass deep right to J.Landry ran ob at CLV 29 for 19 yards. (VERY GOOD) – Nice drop back in endzone delivering accurate ball to sideline wr.

o   2nd & 9 at CLE 30

(4:51 - 2nd) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass short right to N.Chubb to CLV 28 for -2 yards (Z.Smith). (GOOD) Horizontal quick throw to RB on target but low difficulty.

o   3rd & 11 at CLE 28

(4:06 - 2nd) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass short left intended for R.Higgins INTERCEPTED (VERY BAD) Forces throw into coverage as defender steps in front of wr and tips pass for interception

o   1st & 10 at CLE 7

(1:50 - 2nd) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete deep middle to J.Landry. (VERY GOOD) Identifies Landry in deep middle and wr did not adjust well enough. Ball could have been placed a little better but was still an accurate throw that should have been caught.

o   2nd & 10 at CLE 7

(1:50 - 2nd) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete deep left. Mayfield throws pass away. (GOOD) Pressure comes and steps up throwing ball away to avoid sack.

o   3rd & 10 at CLE 7

(1:50 - 2nd) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete short left to A.Callaway. (BAD) Pressure comes and throws a pass well over head of wr who was open with a better throw.

o    

o   1st & 10 at CLE 6

(0:36 - 2nd) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass deep right to A.Callaway pushed ob at CLV 27 for 21 yards (M.Humphrey). (VERY GOOD) Nice accurate pass to wr who catches in stride.

o   1st & 10 at CLE 27

(0:29 - 2nd) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete deep right to D.Johnson. (GOOD) Extends play outside pocket and throws on run along sideline where only target has any chance.

o   2nd & 10 at CLE 27

(0:21 - 2nd) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass deep middle to R.Higgins to BLT 33 for 40 yards (T.Jefferson) [C.Wormley]. (GOOD) Only rated as good because extended play and took a chance late in half by throwing it up and looking for wr to make a play (if intercepted it would not have been a huge deal as there was less than 10 seconds to go in half and he could afford to take a bigger risk looking for chunk play.

o   1st & 10 at BAL 33

(0:08 - 2nd) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete deep right to B.Perriman. PENALTY on BLT-M.Humphrey, Defensive Offside, 5 yards, enforced at BLT 33 - No Play and not recorded.

o   SECOND HALF

o   1st & 10 at BAL 48

(12:27 - 3rd) Jarvis Landry Pass From Baker Mayfield for 48 Yds (VERY GOOD) trick bobble pass play throwing mostly accurate pass to Landry who this time adjusts to pass for TD

2nd & 14 at CLE 31

(6:17 - 3rd) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass short right to D.Fells to CLV 34 for 3 yards (T.Jefferson). (GOOD) Short pass to outside on target

o   3rd & 11 at CLE 34

(5:36 - 3rd) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete deep left to A.Callaway. (BAD) Intended pass is well out of bounds and wr has no chance to make a play

o    

o   1st & 10 at CLE 23

(2:53 - 3rd) B.Mayfield pass deep right to D.Njoku to BLT 35 for 42 yards (M.Humphrey). (VERY GOOD) Identifies 1 on 1 matchup downfield and gives TE a good ball to make a play on. TE makes great catch.

o   1st & 10 at BAL 35

(2:06 - 3rd) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass short right to B.Perriman to BLT 37 for -2 yards (C.Mosley). (GOOD) Short horizontal pass on target.

o   3rd & 8 at BAL 33

(0:44 - 3rd) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass short right to R.Higgins pushed ob at BLT 22 for 11 yards (M.Humphrey). (VERY GOOD) Slides in pocket and makes accurate throw allowing wr to run for first down.

o   1st & 10 at BAL 22

(0:08 - 3rd) B.Mayfield pass short right to N.Chubb to BLT 24 for -2 yards (M.Pierce). (GOOD) Double screen design and throws accurate screen to RB

o   2nd & 12 at BAL 24

(15:00 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield sacked at BLT 34 for -10 yards (C.Mosley). PENALTY on BLT-M.Humphrey, Defensive Holding, 5 yards, enforced at BLT 24 - No Play and not recorded

o   1st & 10 at BAL 19

(14:38 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete short right to N.Chubb. (GOOD) Extends play out of pocket and makes an inaccurate pass to RB but avoided sack and negative play

o   2nd & 10 at BAL 19

(14:33 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass short left to R.Higgins to BLT 17 for 2 yards (T.Jefferson). (GOOD) Short accurate wr screen pass

o   3rd & 8 at BAL 17

(13:52 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete short middle to D.Njoku. (BAD) Pressure comes but TE is wide open and an accurate pass results in TD

o    

o   1st & 10 at CLE 25

(7:20 - 4th) B.Mayfield pass short right to D.Njoku to CLV 38 for 13 yards (T.Suggs). (GOOD) Takes check down and accurate throw to TE who makes a play

o   2nd & 15 at CLE 33

(5:57 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass short middle to D.Njoku to CLV 40 for 7 yards (C.Wormley). (GOOD) Short accurate pass to TE

o   3rd & 8 at CLE 40

(5:00 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass short right to J.Landry ran ob at BLT 46 for 14 yards (T.Young). (VERY GOOD) Pressure down and accurate sideline pass

o   1st & 10 at BAL 46

(5:00 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass short left to R.Higgins to BLT 13 for 33 yards (T.Jefferson). (GOOD) Wr screen pass that is low but catchable and set up well for big gain.

o   2nd & 3 at BAL 6

(4:14 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass short right to J.Landry to BLT 1 for 5 yards (T.Jefferson). (GOOD) Short accurate pass

o   1st & Goal at BAL 1

(3:32 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete short right to D.Njoku (M.Humphrey).

• • (VERY GOOD) Excellent jump ball pass and nearly a TD

o   2nd & Goal at BAL 1

(3:24 - 4th) Antonio Callaway Pass From Baker Mayfield for 1 Yard (GOOD) Nice accurate pick play pass for TD

o   1st & 10 at CLE 26

(1:49 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete short right to B.Perriman. (BAD) Thrown behind target

o   2nd & 10 at CLE 26

(1:46 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass deep right to B.Perriman to CLV 45 for 19 yards (B.Carr). (OUTSTANDING) Extends play outside and makes very accurate throw along sideline where only wr can make a play at a key point in game.

1st & 10 at CLE 45

(1:40 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete deep left to J.Landry. (BAD) Throws over head of WR who has no chance to make play

o   2nd & 10 at CLE 45

(1:35 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass complete deep middle to J.Landry 16 yds (T.Young). (VERY GOOD) Accurate throw on move outside pocket and even better catch.

o   1st & 10 at BAL 39

(1:18 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete short right to D.Njoku (A.Levine Sr.). (GOOD) Gave accurate enough jump pass at sideline but was covered nicely

o   2nd & 10 at BAL 39

(1:14 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete short left to J.Landry (J.Smith). (VERY BAD) Had Landry open but threw well behind him for what should have been an easy catch and out of bounds play.

o   3rd & 10 at BAL 39

(1:10 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass incomplete short middle to D.Njoku (A.Levine Sr.). (GOOD) Accurate pass into tight coverage.

o   4th & 10 at BAL 39

(1:06 - 4th) (Shotgun) B.Mayfield pass short middle intended for D.Johnson INTERCEPTED by C.Mosley (BAD) Some bad luck here as defender got stuffed at rush and ended up being pushed back into the throwing lane

 

TOTALS:

OUTSTANDING PLAYS: 2

VERY GOOD PLAYs: 11

GOOD PLAYS: 17

BAD PLAYS: 9

VERY BAD PLAYS: 3

My summary, Mayfield played a solid game against a very good defense. He made a few outstanding plays and found a good groove in the 3^rd quarter deep into the 4^th. He also started the game with a poor throw and had a number of inaccurate passes throughout the game. He did not see wide open wrs at times and missed some easy throws. He is not a dynamic scrambler but can slide around and extend plays. He throws well off platform and on the move. He did not end the final drive particularly well and missed an easy first down throw to Landry on the sideline setting up the eventual interception.

This is just one game so I don’t want to make too much of it. But all it really proves is that if we analyze any of the rookie quarterback (or really any quarterback) enough, we will see warts. Baker is viewed as a rising star yet he made a number of poor throws and decisions. It happens to the best of them and the defenses get paid too. Getting back to Allen, I think is makes him look even better. Each week there seems to be 4-5 plays that he is off target or makes a poor decision. Well guess what, Baker is doing that too. And I’d venture a guess that if I did a serious rating of a Darnold, Rosen or Jackson game that they would have a slew of bad plays as well. So if Baker is the gold standard for accuracy, I just did not see his accuracy as head and shoulders above what Allen has displayed the last 6 games.

Edited January 18, 2019 by racketmaster

[Shaw66]

3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

See my above comments to transplant.  I think Allen needs to work on precision, or putting the ball on a specific spot, more because that would allow receivers to make more yards after the catch and so on.  I think his accuracy is fine, but the really great ones like Brees  are highly accurate and can put the throw within that accuracy range right on the money., right where they want it.  When folks talk about fitting a ball into a tight window, to me you have to be really precise.  So from that perspective I think there is significance.

 

Thanks.  I get that.   What I said is that it's nice for you to think about it in that way and talk about it that way, because you like the precision of the language.   

 

I don't think the coaches ever get to precision vs accuracy.  They might, but I doubt it.   I think they review the play and grade Allen on everything he did on the play.  If he didn't do as well as they want, they note that and they make a decision or decisions about what they're going to work with Allen on to eliminate the mistake or reduce the probability that it will happen again.  

 

They might decide he delievered the ball too early or too late, so they work on his decision making.   They might decide he delivered it too high or too low; if it's a recurring problem, they decide what they're going to do about it.  If it's just a miss, it's a miss.  If the receiver should have had a better ball to give him a better run after catch opportunity (because the throw wasn't precise enough), they decide what to do about that.   But I think that for ANY ball that isn't thrown within a small enough radius (isn't precise enough AND isn't accurate enough), they decide what to do.  

 

I don't think they say "Josh has a precision problem, so we need to work on his footwork.  If he had an accuracy problem we'd work on his shoulder turn."   Instead, they look at plays with less than perfect outcomes, decide what Josh should have done on that play to have been better.  If it's a recurring problem, they work on it.  If it's a random problem they don't do much about it."  They don't have a book of remedies for precision and another book of remedies for accuracy, so they don't distinguish.  

[Shaw66]

3 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Not speaking for GB, but I felt they were wasted picks because they were redundant with what we already had from a skillset standpoint. When the receiver you took in the second last year is clearly best suited for the slot there's no need to take fliers on more slot guys. To modify your original analogy, I saw the Ray Ray and Proehl picks as already having a lotto ticket, and buying 2 more with the same numbers on them.

Thanks.  That's helpful.  

 

Beane claims he is a strict BPA guy, but we all know that if the BPA in every round is a center, he isn't going to take seven centers.  So you have to be right at some point.  

 

But, since you know that the return on guys down at the end of the draft is low, if you need a receiver, it's not stupid to bet on the same position multiple times.   It increases the chances you'll win on one.  And it really isn't likely that if the Bills won on two of them, they would have kept one on the bench.  First, they aren't likey to be productive for most of their rookie seasons, as was the case with Foster.   But even if Foster had made it from day one, if Ray Ray had made it too, they BOTH would have been playing.   The coach is going to find ways to get productive guys on the field.   Belichick played several seasons with a cadre of small, not particularly fast receivers.   

 

So although your points are good and show that the probability of helping the team might have been higher by spreading those picks around, position wise, the practical reality is that you're likely to do no better than one out of three with picks like that, and that's what Beane did.  If he'd had two Fosters in the mix, McDermott would have player two Fosters with Zay.  If one developed really fast, he would have taken Benjamin's job earlier.  

 

Wasted, no.  Might there have been a better strategy, yes, I agree.  

[Shaw66]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

And that, good sir, is where we disagree. I don't ever think it is a crap shoot. It always comes down to talent evaluation. Is it much harder in the 6th and 7th rounds? Sure it is. All those guys have flaws somewhere that is why they are still on the board at that stage. But when Geronimo Allison and Robby Anderson are still on the board then picking Kolb Listenbee is not just bad luck because it is a crapshoot - it is bad talent evaluation. Picking Austin Proehl over Foster or the USC kid the Jets signed as an UDFA.... is also bad talent evaluation.

 

These are not huge mistakes that I think people should demand firings over.... but it still means they have got it wrong.

 

Fair enough.  Yes, there is talent to evaluate and there are decisions to be made.   And some people are certainly better than others at making those evaluations.   

 

The point is, however, that so far as I know NO ONE in the league is very good at finding starters in the 6th round.   Maybe he's out there, but I don't hear announcers raving about this GM or that GM being better at it than anyone else.   And even if some announcer says that, I doubt he actually has any data - it's all anecdotal.   

 

Just for discussion sake, I'd say that one out of four guys taken in the 6th round becomes a starter in the NFL.  Starter in the sense that at some point he's the starter coming out of training camp, because he's the best player at the position (not starter because he was a backup and filled in for 10 weeks because some other guy did his knee).   Say 25% is correct.   I think you'll find that the best GMs, the best talent evaluators, are finding starters in the sixth round 30 or 35% of the time.   They aren't hitting 75% of the time.  The worst GMs are hitting maybe 20%. 

 

The difference between the best and the worst means that the best is finding a starter once every three years and the other is finding one every five years.   That one starter is meaningful, of course, but it's really hard to attribute the difference to the GM's player evaluation because there are so many other variables that go into whether they guy is going to become a starter, such as coaching, the scheme the team plays, etc.  In other words, I don't think it's possible to establish whether the difference in yield is actually the result of talent evaluation or other noise in the process.  

 

I think when someone says Beane wasted a pick it means he made a choice that he should have known wasn't as good as he could have done with one or several other players.  Now, Hokie's point is a better one - that a pick is "wasted" if it's the third guy you've picked for the same position.  But to blame Beane because it took him three picks to find a receiver at that point in the draft and to suggest that his talent evaluation is deficient I think is wrong.  The yield is low enough that it IS a crapshoot.   Yes, you do your best to figure out who to take, and some people might do better than others, but the fact is that you're selecting from a pool of players, NONE of whom projects to be an NFL starter.   They're too slow, or too small, or too dumb, or too unathletic.   If they're in the sixth round they're too something to be a likely NFL starter.   The question is whether you can find who is more likely to overcome his deficiencies than the other guys who are still available.  

 

Now, I'm sure that every once in the while some GM is looking at some guy in the sixth round thinking "I KNOW this guy will play for us," but that's unusual.   The GMs who are frank after the draft will tell you what what the guy has to improve if he's going to have a shot.   

[GunnerBill]

I think you are reading into what I am saying Shaw. I think you are presuming I am trying to make an argument that Beane is a bad GM. I am not. He found two good players as UDFAs last year - both of whom were starting by the end of their rookie seasons. The last good UDFA we found before that was Nickel Robey-Coleman in 2013. I am not arguing he is worse at finding players in late rounds than anyone else.

 

What I am arguing (and I think is where C.Biscuit started) is that in general the job they have done at evaluating WR talent - FA, trades and draft has not been good - even the one guy it looks like they found they did so after using two more valuable assets at the position and missing. 

 

 

[Shaw66]

55 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

I think you are reading into what I am saying Shaw. I think you are presuming I am trying to make an argument that Beane is a bad GM. I am not. He found two good players as UDFAs last year - both of whom were starting by the end of their rookie seasons. The last good UDFA we found before that was Nickel Robey-Coleman in 2013. I am not arguing he is worse at finding players in late rounds than anyone else.

 

What I am arguing (and I think is where C.Biscuit started) is that in general the job they have done at evaluating WR talent - FA, trades and draft has not been good - even the one guy it looks like they found they did so after using two more valuable assets at the position and missing. 

 

 

Got it.  Thanks.  I love being in good discussions about things like this. 

 

I'd say that isn't even meaningful to say that the job he did evaluating receiving talent was bad.   I mean, there's no doubt he's run through a lot of receivers and doesn't have much to show for it.  But I have a healthy respect for how tough their jobs are, and I'd guess that most GMs have a position they've botched over a two year period.   It's not desirable and it would be nice if it didn't happen, but it happens.   I think we tend to focus on the failures and not the successes.   I think you have to evaluate GMs on the total package, because when you begin narrowing in a position group, it's just too small a sample size to be meaningful.  Two more years of the same drought at receivers and I'll agree with you. 

 

As an example - I'm an offensive line novice, so I can't give you names or anything, but I suspect that IF the o line gets good next season, it's not going to be because they got five new guys.  I think they'll get good by having two new starters and better coaching.   People in retrospect are going to say Beane knew what he was doing getting Teller or keeping Groy or sticking with MIlls or Miller, because now they're better.  I'm not predicting who will get better, just that some guys who posters are inclined to complain about are going to turn into productive players, in part because the coaches were patient and in part because those guys will have better players around them.  So if that happens, Beane deserves credit for managing that, and that's credit the GM rarely gets.   

 

But I get your point.  You're not criticizing Beane so much as pointing out the obvious fact that he hasn't loaded Allen up with great receiving options.