Jump to content
transplantbillsfan

Josh Allen 2019 Regular Season at 58.8% Completion Percentage

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Mango said:


I am sure there are only a few of top 10 drafted QB’s without any sort of major star on his resume. That was sort of my point. There has been tons of QB’s who have Josh’s resume outside of his draft place. This far in his career his performance has been pretty similar to his journey. 
 

I like Josh. He’s an electric player. He hasn’t been a terribly good (consistent might be a better word) passer and really never has been. He could become one. To this point, given the QB market, he hasn’t earned a 35-40M mil new contract. 

Neither has Dak, Wentz, or Goff, but two of those three have got those contracts and the third is about to, and they had much better situations to thrive in yet they all have there flaws. Allen was seen as a project from day one, to ignore the obvious improvements made in the environment he has played in is ridiculous. Terrible offensive line to start with little or no weapons, improved but still substandard o line and weapons second year and Gee what happens with this and experience he improves. Still has receivers who can’t consistently catch, and still has an o line that lets jail break pressure more often than not. Still an inconsistent running game that often put him in a hole. None of the three previously mentioned qbs operate under those conditions. If your eyes can’t tell you what is going on, it must be the neuroplasticity of your brain doesn’t allow it. The real science is people who form bad opinions especially based on statistics  will go to the end of the earth to protect those poor opinions even if their eyes tell them differently....

  • Thanks! (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2020 at 2:40 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Good, point of agreement

 

Even incorrect motions serving a tennis or volleyball in a controlled environment can be hard to break if they're firmly encoded in "muscle memory"

 

I think the point a bunch of people have made is to the "done something for years" bit.  Hopefully we can find a second point of agreement in that it's not the "years" that are the thing so much as the number of repetitions with an incorrect motion.  Example: If I go skiing twice a year with bad technique, my technique is likely not as engrained after 10 years as someone who skiis every weekend in winter for 3 years (it may be harder for me to change for another reason)

 

Athletic technique also naturally has to adjust as one's body grows. 

...

 

Either he will or he won't, where Josh Allen is concerned I don't think it's any good making assumptions.

 

 

 

 

First of all I agree with everything you wrote. I think Allen will improve. I used the extreme example of newbs learning football to show it's not coaching that's 100% the solution, but the person as well.

 

I once helped coach a kid to have Division I technique in 6 months in tennis, he had borderline pro technique instantly. Great athlete, fast learning, incredible hand-eye coordination, etc.. Once it was a match with pressure he couldn't be consistent to save his life. He was overthinking everything. I'm sure he made a great college player by his 3rd year, but that's as far as it could go. Pressure destroys coaching all the time without the pressure cooker of time to solidify it. There has to be time applied to the learning where it feel natural.

 

Every sport requires massive nuance that just can't be coached, it must be done over and over again. It's called the "feel" for the game. I know you know this, but people think if the player gets X coaching they get a Y solution. It's freaking hard to play sports at the highest level.

 

I 100% believe Josh will be better next year. That same confidence does not mean he'll be a $35 million QB or a starter in the NFL. I hope he does. But the mere belief I think he may not makes people go insane. To say he's inaccurate right now does not mean he can't improve.

 

Is that so unreasonable as to say he may not pan out in this system/staff? That he needs a strong run game and patience to see if he's capable? That other players may in fact be better than he is currently? That he didn't "lead" the team to 10-6 but he was basically along for the ride of a great defense? That a 4th quarter comeback against the Bengals isn't really an accomplishment and more of an indictment we had no offense the whole game?

 

All of those questions are objectively true or could reasonably be argued.

 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

Says the guy who predicted he would be the MVP in 2019 when he was ranked 26th out of all QBs.

 

Which is closer to delusion: someone who points out he's 26th or the guy who thinks he's 1st out of 32? And the winner is...

 

Next you told @Mango he was going to be drafted in the top 10. Says who? He was already at #7 and guys slip all of the time. The only guarantee in the draft is that there aren't any guarantees.

 

Your argument, even if valid, is like listing a house 3 bed 2 bath house in rural Buffalo for $5 million dollars and then when someone comes to see it you tell them "Well it was $5 million, we've really dropped the price".

 

Big arm QBs without accuracy have been the disaster of the NFL drafts for decades. It's like a who's who of busts.

 

Last, you showed me some of his best throws under pressure. Sure, they exist, but that's not what neuroplasticity is. It's the reason why Allen is blitzed so frequently by teams like the Ravens and Pats*. He's the 30th worst QB under blitz pressure:
https://www.milehighreport.com/2019/11/2/20943679/who-should-you-not-blitz

He's 30th against the blitz. 30th. Stats aren't anecdotal videos. Stats show what happens under normative circumstances. He completed 7 of 24 against the blitz against the Ravens.


What does “ranked 26th” mean? In what metric? 
 

Also, you’re using old numbers for the rating vs blitz.  Not sure where Allen ended up, but it sure wasn’t in the bottom 5:

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/NFLMatchup/status/1201530533492199424?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-14770795051179077695.ampproject.net%2F2001281851410%2Fframe.html

 

By the way, the rankings of guys like Tannehill and Brady in the above link should tell you an awful lot about whether or not the ability to play vs a blitz is fluid.

 

For a guy that likes to talk down to others and cite fancy theories like neuroplasticity, you seem to have a LOT of confusion regarding QB development. For example, you want to claim that accuracy (via completion percentage) improves when the game slows down (but not due to mechanics being overhauled), whole simultaneously claiming that passer rating vs the blitz is a trait we should be judging young QBs by.


Have you considered why Buffalo wasn’t good against the blitz? Could it have anything to do with the fact that our best WR in terms of creating separation (Beasley) needs 3+ seconds in a pattern to separate?

 

I really wish there was a NextGen stat that showed “Time to Separate”. I can almost promise that Buffalo’s WR group would rank low. Very low.

 

That said, it remains the QB’s job to beat the blitz. Yes, an OC can do a lot to help them out—run RPOs and zone reads to significantly slow pursuit like Roman does with Jackson, run a TON of PA like SF and LAR—but eventually the DC can send more people than the offense can block. At that point the QB needs to make a play. It’s one of the reasons that Brady was always so good—he could beat the blitz.
 

But this year, Brady was a bottom-5 QB against the blitz; what happened? Two things: he’s getting older, and his WRs aren’t as good anymore. Teams figured out that if you take away Edelman and White early in the route, they don’t have a player that can win one-on-one matchups like Gronk and Amendola used to.

 

It’s nice to know things about training athletes, but it’s equally important to know the game.

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t even know what we’re debating anymore...🤪

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

I don’t even know what we’re debating anymore...🤪


I’m not entirely certain that there’s a central debate. For me, I tend to only chime in when someone says something that’s objectively false—which happens about 2/3 of the time in Allen discussions 😆 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:


What does “ranked 26th” mean? In what metric? 
 

Also, you’re using old numbers for the rating vs blitz.  Not sure where Allen ended up, but it sure wasn’t in the bottom 5:

 

Have you considered why Buffalo wasn’t good against the blitz? Could it have anything to do with the fact that our best WR in terms of creating separation (Beasley) needs 3+ seconds in a pattern to separate?

 

I really wish there was a NextGen stat that showed “Time to Separate”. I can almost promise that Buffalo’s WR group would rank low. Very low.

 

That said, it remains the QB’s job to beat the blitz. Yes, an OC can do a lot to help them out—run RPOs and zone reads to significantly slow pursuit like Roman does with Jackson, run a TON of PA like SF and LAR—but eventually the DC can send more people than the offense can block. At that point the QB needs to make a play. It’s one of the reasons that Brady was always so good—he could beat the blitz.
 

But this year, Brady was a bottom-5 QB against the blitz; what happened? Two things: he’s getting older, and his WRs aren’t as good anymore. Teams figured out that if you take away Edelman and White early in the route, they don’t have a player that can win one-on-one matchups like Gronk and Amendola used to.

 

It’s nice to know things about training athletes, but it’s equally important to know the game.

 

Our stat differential was 2 weeks. Factor in the Ravens game he was in the bottom tier.

 

Why were we so bad on the blitz? OC calls and time of the hand of Allen. Allen ranked 1st for holding the ball longest.

 

There are countless All-22s that show Allen had time to throw on plays with an open player but couldn’t find his receiver. There are also some All-22s that show he had no time to throw. The “no-time” to throw happens to every QB: throwing it away, etc..

 

Last I don’t think our WRs ranked last on time of separation. I think Allen likes more time to process the field and try to create longer throws.

 

Also Brady’s blitz metrics went down not because of Pedelman or White and the lack of Gronk, but he clearly regressed mentally and physically. When he was young his receivers weren’t great and he did just fine against the blitz.

 

I find comical that people can insult me and if I use their same language I’m talking down to them. Like you saying I don’t know the game. When did I accuse anyone of not knowing the game? Your hypocrisy is a bit silly. I used the argument of neuroplasticity not to talk down to people but to point out an element in learning. Did I ever say “if you hillbillies knew about X then talk to me?” Who am I except for another fan, I don't think anyone is more worthy of their own views or opinions. Share yours, I'd love to hear them, I've learned a lot here and other places. I'm just a dad and fan of the Bills. I'm a nobody.

 

Maybe use arguments and you’ll find I’m very polite. If I cite stats and proof I like friendly debate. I’m not threatened by discussion, even disagreement.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

Our stat differential was 2 weeks. Factor in the Ravens game he was in the bottom tier.

 

Why were we so bad on the blitz? OC calls and time of the hand of Allen. Allen ranked 1st for holding the ball longest.

 

There are countless All-22s that show Allen had time to throw on plays with an open player but couldn’t find his receiver. There are also some All-22s that show he had no time to throw. The “no-time” to throw happens to every QB: throwing it away, etc..

 

Last I don’t think our WRs ranked last on time of separation. I think Allen likes more time to process the field and try to create longer throws.

 

Also Brady’s blitz metrics went down not because of Pedelman or White and the lack of Gronk, but he clearly regressed mentally and physically. When he was young his receivers weren’t great and he did just fine against the blitz.

 

I find comical that people can insult me and if I use their same language I’m talking down to them. Like you saying I don’t know the game. When did I accuse anyone of not knowing the game? Your hypocrisy is a bit silly. I used the argument of neuroplasticity not to talk down to people but to point out an element in learning. Did I ever say “if you hillbillies knew about X then talk to me?” Who am I except for another fan, I don't think anyone is more worthy of their own views or opinions. Share yours, I'd love to hear them, I've learned a lot here and other places. I'm just a dad and fan of the Bills. I'm a nobody.

 

Maybe use arguments and you’ll find I’m very polite. If I cite stats and proof I like friendly debate. I’m not threatened by discussion, even disagreement.


Allen did not rank 1st for holding the ball longest. His average TT was 2.85–less than the averages of guys like Lamar, Tannehill, Rodgers, Dak, and Cousins:

https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/passing#average-time-to-throw
 

And purely looking at time to throw is not a full analysis. You need to look at the causative factor. Was Allen holding the ball too long, or was he scrambling under pressure? If you look at PFR, they answer this question. 
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2019/passing_advanced.htm

 

Allen actually had the lowest average pocket time in the entire NFL. Pocket time is defined by PFR as the time between the snap and either the release or the breakdown of the pocket. So no, it’s not Allen just holding the ball. For comparison sake, the others I mentioned above with longer TT’s than Allen all ranked in the top 5 in terms of having the most pocket time. Gigantic difference.

 

And for the record I didn’t insult you. I said that there were things about the game that you didn’t understand. That’s no big deal. There are things about the game that I don’t understand either.

 

Now I did call you out for talking down to others about neuroplasticity as though we don’t know that technique and habit take time to refine. That doesn’t need to be a big thing either, so if you were offended by that then I apologize.

 

And yes, the bigger issues are that the offense hasn’t made it easy on Allen. Look no further than Lamar: he had a league-high 173 called RPOs, and the 3rd most pass attempts out of PA. Allen was 11th and 19th, respectively. Guys like Murray, Watson, Wilson, Mahomes, and evening Wentz had similar high percentages of plays that are designed to give them time and matchup advantages. Why isn’t Allen being given the same opportunity?

  • Like (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

And yes, the bigger issues are that the offense hasn’t made it easy on Allen. Look no further than Lamar: he had a league-high 173 called RPOs, and the 3rd most pass attempts out of PA. Allen was 11th and 19th, respectively. Guys like Murray, Watson, Wilson, Mahomes, and evening Wentz had similar high percentages of plays that are designed to give them time and matchup advantages. Why isn’t Allen being given the same opportunity?

 

If you've ever read what I've wrote (not that I'm a worthy read), I've 100% put blame on the coaches/GM for Allen, not Allen. You don't put a raw QB without a good TE who is established and a good run game. It's poorly thought out. I've said he's more like a Big Ben/McNair who needs time to grow.

 

I agree with almost everything you said. I'm not an Allen basher, I'm a Daboll/Beane and McDermott critic for how they run the offense. How do you put a rookie who is not ready next to Peterman? Where is your identity?

 

Guys like Murray and Jackson have been given clear mandates. Allen is floundering not because he can't succeed but because he's not in the position with personnel, schemes, and GM preparing for him. It's like taking your highest pick for a QB ever and hoping he turns out great somehow someway. It's not fair to Allen.

 

Look at the playoff game for example: we had a clear identity for 1 offensive series, and it was awesome. The whole rest of the game the play calling was ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

If you've ever read what I've wrote (not that I'm a worthy read), I've 100% put blame on the coaches/GM for Allen, not Allen. You don't put a raw QB without a good TE who is established and a good run game. It's poorly thought out. I've said he's more like a Big Ben/McNair who needs time to grow.

 

I agree with almost everything you said. I'm not an Allen basher, I'm a Daboll/Beane and McDermott critic for how they run the offense. How do you put a rookie who is not ready next to Peterman? Where is your identity?

 

Guys like Murray and Jackson have been given clear mandates. Allen is floundering not because he can't succeed but because he's not in the position with personnel, schemes, and GM preparing for him. It's like taking your highest pick for a QB ever and hoping he turns out great somehow someway. It's not fair to Allen.

 

Look at the playoff game for example: we had a clear identity for 1 offensive series, and it was awesome. The whole rest of the game the play calling was ridiculous.


That last paragraph is Daboll in a nutshell. His play designs are excellent for the most part; he knows how to scheme players open and take advantage of individual talents. 
 

His in-game post-scripted play-calling, however, varies from great to altogether brutal. It’s like he has zero feel for the game on a series-to-series basis. But as soon as you say that about him, he busts out a brilliant, game-winning play call like the QB sweep in OT—that should’ve been a walk-off and we all know it.

 

Frustrating doesn’t begin to describe it.

 

And for the record I have indeed read your posts, and I believe them to be patently reasonable for the most part.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

Our stat differential was 2 weeks. Factor in the Ravens game he was in the bottom tier.

 

Why were we so bad on the blitz? OC calls and time of the hand of Allen. Allen ranked 1st for holding the ball longest.

 

There are countless All-22s that show Allen had time to throw on plays with an open player but couldn’t find his receiver. There are also some All-22s that show he had no time to throw. The “no-time” to throw happens to every QB: throwing it away, etc..

 

Last I don’t think our WRs ranked last on time of separation. I think Allen likes more time to process the field and try to create longer throws.

 

Also Brady’s blitz metrics went down not because of Pedelman or White and the lack of Gronk, but he clearly regressed mentally and physically. When he was young his receivers weren’t great and he did just fine against the blitz.

 

I find comical that people can insult me and if I use their same language I’m talking down to them. Like you saying I don’t know the game. When did I accuse anyone of not knowing the game? Your hypocrisy is a bit silly. I used the argument of neuroplasticity not to talk down to people but to point out an element in learning. Did I ever say “if you hillbillies knew about X then talk to me?” Who am I except for another fan, I don't think anyone is more worthy of their own views or opinions. Share yours, I'd love to hear them, I've learned a lot here and other places. I'm just a dad and fan of the Bills. I'm a nobody.

 

Maybe use arguments and you’ll find I’m very polite. If I cite stats and proof I like friendly debate. I’m not threatened by discussion, even disagreement.

I don't believe you understand the concept of neuroplasticity, and I say that as one who has taught neuroanatomy and physiology for decades.  Neuroplasticity refers to changes in synaptic connections that occur in the brain in response to altered environments, such as occurs with brain injury, or learning, or such.  New synaptic connections are formed, and other lost, as the brain responds.  You are implying that Allen cannot develop much because at his age he has behaviors locked in that cannot be easily changed.  That is simply not true.  Plasticity used to be thought of as a childhood phenomenon, but more recent research and understanding indicates that plasticity is not limited to any age.  This is seen most dramatically in stroke victims, where different areas of the brain can reprogram and take over functions that were associated with the stroke-affected area.  Allen certainly is not so old that he cannot learn more or be coached to perform different tasks differently.  To suggest that would imply that learning ability is lost in one's early 20's, which is of course ridiculous.

 

I will politely also point out that your concept of statistics is faulty.  Just quoting stats like a certain completion rate is inadequate.  It is whether such stats have any meaning that is critical, and you fall into the trap many fall into by quoting stats with no real understanding of how the stats were developed and whether their derivation is appropriate.  You threw out that Allen is a worse passer that a guy with a 60% completion rate because 58.6% is less that 60%.  Not true.  Are your familiar with the concept of the power of an analysis? Power refers to how many observations that are needed to validate statistical differences between samples.  With the number of passes Allen threw last year, there is no statistical difference between 58.6% and 60%.  He would have to throw thousands of passes for the difference to have validity.  You also just threw out that, for college passers coming out of college, that 62% is the number that needs to be shown for success in the NFL, with absolutely no justification for doing so.  Having an opinion is one thing; you're welcome to that one for all it means, which is really nothing.  But if you're going to stand up and say that you cite stats as part of the debate, then you need to show folks why the stats you cite are meaningful in any way.  I review dozens of scientific manuscripts a year for professional journals, and I reject most.  And the reason why is generally one of two:  inappropriate statistical analysis, or poor study design that more tries to meet an author's per-formed conclusion vs. a true analysis of data.  You seeem guilty of both.

 

I have my doctorate and as pointed out above have taught neuroanatomy and physiology, and have graduate training is statistics and study design.  I tend to be a nerd about that stuff around here because I think folks chronically misuse and abuse stats in looking at NFL play.  If you'd like to share your background so we can accurately assess your knowledge base on things like stats and neuroplasticity, I and I am sure others would welcome that.   

 

Edited by oldmanfan
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 2
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

I 100% believe Josh will be better next year. That same confidence does not mean he'll be a $35 million QB or a starter in the NFL. I hope he does. But the mere belief I think he may not makes people go insane. To say he's inaccurate right now does not mean he can't improve.

 

Is that so unreasonable as to say he may not pan out in this system/staff? That he needs a strong run game and patience to see if he's capable? That other players may in fact be better than he is currently? That he didn't "lead" the team to 10-6 but he was basically along for the ride of a great defense? That a 4th quarter comeback against the Bengals isn't really an accomplishment and more of an indictment we had no offense the whole game?

 

All of those questions are objectively true or could reasonably be argued.

 

 

First off Allen IS already a starting QB in the NFL. 

 

Second, those of us who believe Allen will be a very good to elite NFL QB readily agree that we need to see more in year 3 before the Bills commit the big bucks.

 

Where you are being unreasonable is when you go on about Allen not being able to improve any further.  That is simply ridiculous.

 

You are also guilty of selective memory when it comes to the games Allen played in this year. 

 

I don't know what motivates you here but it's NOT about wanting a good faith discussion of Allen's strengths & weaknesses.

 

 

Edited by CincyBillsFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Neuroplasticity refers to changes in synaptic connections that occur in the brain in response to altered environments, such as occurs with brain injury, or learning, or such.  New synaptic connections are formed, and other lost, as the brain responds.  You are implying that Allen cannot develop much because at his age he has behaviors locked in that cannot be easily changed....

 

...You threw out that Allen is a worse passer that a guy with a 60% completion rate because 58.6% is less that 60%.  Not true.  Are your familiar with the concept of the power of an analysis? Power refers to how many observations that are needed to validate statistical differences between samples.  With the number of passes Allen threw last year, there is no statistical difference between 58.6% and 60%.  He would have to throw thousands of passes for the difference to have validity.  You also just threw out that, for college passers coming out of college, that 62% is the number that needs to be shown for success in the NFL, with absolutely no justification for doing so. 

 

...And the reason why is generally one of two:  inappropriate statistical analysis, or poor study design that more tries to meet an author's per-formed conclusion vs. a true analysis of data.  You seeem guilty of both.

 

If you'd like to share your background so we can accurately assess your knowledge base on things like stats and neuroplasticity, I and I am sure others would welcome that.   

 

 

2 things on a corollary can both be true. A shirt can be both blue and yellow but never blue and not blue. I've never said Allen "cannot" develop much, but it's very hard on a professional level to eradicate past mechanical issues without time and practice. Allen can improve, it's just much harder with ingrained habits. I hope he does.

 

If you can point me to a time when I said "cannot" I'll concede your point. You're making several points I never made.

 

I mean this alone is illogical: "because 58.6% is less that 60%.  Not true." Of course it's true.

 

You said it takes thousands (2,000 min then?) to know if that's true. That's 4 seasons. No one throws 4 seasons of footballs in 1 season for analysis. You tried before with your N1 statement which I showed doesn't apply to 1 game in sports, and your arguments of precision which barely apply to a QB.

 

Let me make it more concrete. If Allen threw for 72% this year and anyone said "we don't know if he's accurate he's hasn't thrown the ball 2,000 times" are you going to tell me you're going to call that person out for lack of statistical sampling or say "Dang right he is!" and if I joined in on the celebration of accuracy would you be as objective in your analysis and call me out with your credentials? I'm curious if your position is one sided.

 

Using that same logic no one could ever be accurate in a single season if one needs "thousands" of data to make the analysis. Football is not a laboratory and #s are generally true because they generally are.

 

I've never said passers out of college 62% is the number needed for success. Show me where.

 

Lastly, my background is irrelevant to the discussion. Facts, logic, and reasonable arguments is what we argue. To give you some indication of what my background is the argumentum ab auctoritate is fallacious and spurious. I have to say if you post your credentials demanding obedience you might as well use my actual arguments as well.

 

I'm not saying Allen can't learn or adapt, I said it takes time. That's why we need a great running game like Big Ben did and McNair had with Eddie George. What I'm saying is bad habits are harder to fix we should do more to give him more chances to succeed by giving him a great running game and better targets and let him grow.

Edited by BigBillsFan
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

2 things on a corollary can both be true. A shirt can be both blue and yellow but never blue and not blue. I've never said Allen "cannot" develop much, but it's very hard on a professional level to eradicate past mechanical issues without time and practice. Allen can improve, it's just much harder with ingrained habits. I hope he does.

 

If you can point me to a time when I said "cannot" I'll concede your point. You're making several points I never made.

 

I mean this alone is illogical: "because 58.6% is less that 60%.  Not true." Of course it's true.

 

You said it takes thousands (2,000 min then?) to know if that's true. That's 4 seasons. No one throws 4 seasons of footballs in 1 season for analysis. You tried before with your N1 statement which I showed doesn't apply to 1 game in sports, and your arguments of precision which barely apply to a QB.

 

Let me make it more concrete. If Allen threw for 72% this year and anyone said "we don't know if he's accurate he's hasn't thrown the ball 2,000 times" are you going to tell me you're going to call that person out for lack of statistical sampling or say "Dang right he is!" and if I joined in on the celebration of accuracy would you be as objective in your analysis and call me out with your credentials? I'm curious if your position is one sided.

 

Using that same logic no one could ever be accurate in a single season if one needs "thousands" of data to make the analysis. Football is not a laboratory and #s are generally true because they generally are.

 

I've never said passers out of college 62% is the number needed for success. Show me where.

 

Lastly, my background is irrelevant to the discussion. Facts, logic, and reasonable arguments is what we argue. To give you some indication of what my background is the argumentum ab auctoritate is fallacious and spurious. I have to say if you post your credentials demanding obedience you might as well use my actual arguments as well.

 

I'm not saying Allen can't learn or adapt, I said it takes time. That's why we need a great running game like Big Ben did and McNair had with Eddie George. What I'm saying is bad habits are harder to fix we should do more to give him more chances to succeed by giving him a great running game and better targets and let him grow.

The power analysis tells you how many samples you need to understand if there is a true difference.  58.6 is very close to 60% therefore you need many more samples to know that the two things are different.  72% is >> than 60% and you need fewer samples to tell a difference (also completion % is not a good measure of accuracy imo). 

 

I think the best way to think of this (and honestly Allen in generally) is Top 4 (Elite), Second Best 4 (Good), Bottom 4 (Terrible), Second worst 4 (Bad), and everyone else (Average).  If Allen is 26th then hes in the second worst 4 and is not making the grade.  If he is 23 he really is just average cause you dont have the power to tell the difference between him and number 9.  These are guidelines but I think they have really helped me thinking about if something is a concern or if something else is as good as it seems.

 

This guideline has gotten me to Allen is an average QB for the most part (some good and some bad) and I consider that a big improvement from last year which had much more bad.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, YattaOkasan said:

The power analysis tells you how many samples you need to understand if there is a true difference.  58.6 is very close to 60% therefore you need many more samples to know that the two things are different.  72% is >> than 60% and you need fewer samples to tell a difference (also completion % is not a good measure of accuracy imo). 

 

I think the best way to think of this (and honestly Allen in generally) is Top 4 (Elite), Second Best 4 (Good), Bottom 4 (Terrible), Second worst 4 (Bad), and everyone else (Average).  If Allen is 26th then hes in the second worst 4 and is not making the grade.  If he is 23 he really is just average cause you dont have the power to tell the difference between him and number 9.  These are guidelines but I think they have really helped me thinking about if something is a concern or if something else is as good as it seems.

 

This guideline has gotten me to Allen is an average QB for the most part (some good and some bad) and I consider that a big improvement from last year which had much more bad.

 

My point is you can't use a scientific statistical analysis for NFL QBs. Apply N1 to completions per game, TDs, INTs and you just can't.

 

Let's use "Rating" as a fairly accurate measure of a QB. The 9th best QB is Derek Carr and the 23rd is Fitzy. I don't think they are comparable. 11th is Watson and 20th is Jones. Again not comparable. Even 13th is Wentz and again Jones isn't close this year.

 

I don't see how you can relate 23rd to 9th at all.

 

Power as you describe means a large statistical analysis and creating averages. This cannot be done with NFL QBs.

 

The NFL as I see it has about 3-5 elite QBs (although I'd argue we might be down to 1 soon), about 5-7 franchise guys, and the rest is a carousel of guys who could be backups or borderline starters. Their replacement value is close to equal. Case Keenum could be replaced with Fitz could be replaced with Trubisky, etc. without much change in the season. An elite QB adds 4-7 wins to their team above replacement and a franchise is 2-5 wins above replacement. Now that's me guessing, I have no stats, but that's my own guess based on Rivers and Brees having great years on horrible teams and guys like Matt Cassell being 11-5 on the Patriots or even Stafford this year on the Lions who was playing lights out.

 

A team is a bigger component than just the QB.

Edited by BigBillsFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

2 things on a corollary can both be true. A shirt can be both blue and yellow but never blue and not blue. I've never said Allen "cannot" develop much, but it's very hard on a professional level to eradicate past mechanical issues without time and practice. Allen can improve, it's just much harder with ingrained habits. I hope he does.

 

If you can point me to a time when I said "cannot" I'll concede your point. You're making several points I never made.

 

I mean this alone is illogical: "because 58.6% is less that 60%.  Not true." Of course it's true.

 

You said it takes thousands (2,000 min then?) to know if that's true. That's 4 seasons. No one throws 4 seasons of footballs in 1 season for analysis. You tried before with your N1 statement which I showed doesn't apply to 1 game in sports, and your arguments of precision which barely apply to a QB.

 

Let me make it more concrete. If Allen threw for 72% this year and anyone said "we don't know if he's accurate he's hasn't thrown the ball 2,000 times" are you going to tell me you're going to call that person out for lack of statistical sampling or say "Dang right he is!" and if I joined in on the celebration of accuracy would you be as objective in your analysis and call me out with your credentials? I'm curious if your position is one sided.

 

Using that same logic no one could ever be accurate in a single season if one needs "thousands" of data to make the analysis. Football is not a laboratory and #s are generally true because they generally are.

 

I've never said passers out of college 62% is the number needed for success. Show me where.

 

Lastly, my background is irrelevant to the discussion. Facts, logic, and reasonable arguments is what we argue. To give you some indication of what my background is the argumentum ab auctoritate is fallacious and spurious. I have to say if you post your credentials demanding obedience you might as well use my actual arguments as well.

 

I'm not saying Allen can't learn or adapt, I said it takes time. That's why we need a great running game like Big Ben did and McNair had with Eddie George. What I'm saying is bad habits are harder to fix we should do more to give him more chances to succeed by giving him a great running game and better targets and let him grow.

"Because the baseline for accuracy in those days was 60%. If you were over 60% you were accurate in the pros. Today that's creeped up to 62-65% coming out of college"

 

The above is a direct quote from you from page 109 of this thread.  So there you go on the 62% thing. 

 

Your answer confirms what I suspected; you don't know how statistics work.  58.6% is not different than 60% statistically, when looking at Allen's work this past season, because the sample size is not nearly enough to say that.  And that matters.  Just looking at a number and believing it means something is a trap way too many people fall into.  So let's move to the following.  If Allen improved from 58.6% to 72%, would I accept that?  Well, let's do the analysis.  A quick power analysis says that such a difference would have meaning based on a sample size of about 250, or 16 throws a game.  I suspect he would meet that.  So yes, that would be a meaningful improvement.  

 

Not then, let's move to this quote:  "#'s are generally true because they generally are" .  I have to tell you, that is just statistically silly.  Laughable really.  Do you have any idea how easy it is to either support or deny a given position just by playing with numbers?  As I pointed out above, I review a lot of scientific manuscripts and reject many precisely because they play with numbers to try and make things seem what they are not.   

 

Your background is relevant because you claim to use stats to support your arguments.  Thus, your understanding of the meaning of stats either lend credence to your arguments, or detract from them.  Since you clearly do not understand stats (as so dramatically pointed out by saying numbers are generally true because they generally are), you have no more credence over anyone else around here expressing an opinion.

 

As I said above, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.  But let's not think your opinion is more factually based than others, since you don't really understand what you're talking about.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thebandit27 said:

Have you considered why Buffalo wasn’t good against the blitz? Could it have anything to do with the fact that our best WR in terms of creating separation (Beasley) needs 3+ seconds in a pattern to separate?
 

I really wish there was a NextGen stat that showed “Time to Separate”. I can almost promise that Buffalo’s WR group would rank low. Very low.

 

That said, it remains the QB’s job to beat the blitz. Yes, an OC can do a lot to help them out—run RPOs and zone reads to significantly slow pursuit like Roman does with Jackson, run a TON of PA like SF and LAR—but eventually the DC can send more people than the offense can block. At that point the QB needs to make a play. It’s one of the reasons that Brady was always so good—he could beat the blitz.
 

But this year, Brady was a bottom-5 QB against the blitz; what happened? Two things: he’s getting older, and his WRs aren’t as good anymore. Teams figured out that if you take away Edelman and White early in the route, they don’t have a player that can win one-on-one matchups like Gronk and Amendola used to.

 

Good points.  I pointed out elsewhere, I'll point out here that there seems to be some ambiguity about how good Buffalo's OL actually was in providing protection.

 

Allen had one of the longest times to throw in the league - 2.85 seconds per Nextgen Stats (TT).  But that's defined as the time between when the football is snapped, and when the ball leaves the QB's hands.  Since Allen frequently extends plays with his legs, that time would be included in such a stat.  Pro-football-reference (which sources its stats from Sportsradar, which is licensed to distribute NextGen Stats - confused yet?) gives a "Pkttime" stat defined as "time between when the football is snapped and when the pocket collapses OR the ball is thrown" (presumably whichever is less).  The Bills are lowest in the league at 2.3 seconds.

 

That might be good - might mean Josh throws quickly when he stays in the pocket - Drew Brees is also 2.3 seconds - or it might mean the Bills pocket collapses pretty quick a significant amount of the time.

 

Bottom line, there are a lot of things that go into ability to beat the blitz.  People like to call out Allen's low completion percentage in losses as though it's causal, but it's more likely that other aspects of the game (such as problematic receiver separation against physical man coverage and heavy pressure) cause low completion percentage.

 

36 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

Lastly, my background is irrelevant to the discussion. Facts, logic, and reasonable arguments is what we argue. To give you some indication of what my background is the argumentum ab auctoritate is fallacious and spurious. I have to say if you post your credentials demanding obedience you might as well use my actual arguments as well.

 

Is it just me, or is the inclusion of a Latin phrase in a grammatically problematic sentence making anyone else's head spin?  I have no idea what the last sentence means (and it's not because I lack a smattering of Latin or the ability to diagram complex grammatical sentence constructions).  Slow down, guy.  Few things create a less erudite impression than using big words poorly.

 

 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Good points.  I pointed out elsewhere, I'll point out here that there seems to be some ambiguity about how good Buffalo's OL actually was in providing protection.

 

Allen had one of the longest times to throw in the league - 2.85 seconds per Nextgen Stats (TT).  But that's defined as the time between when the football is snapped, and when the ball leaves the QB's hands.  Since Allen frequently extends plays with his legs, that time would be included in such a stat.  Pro-football-reference (which sources its stats from Sportsradar, which is licensed to distribute NextGen Stats - confused yet?) gives a "Pkttime" stat defined as "time between when the football is snapped and when the pocket collapses OR the ball is thrown" (presumably whichever is less).  The Bills are lowest in the league at 2.3 seconds.

 

That might be good - might mean Josh throws quickly when he stays in the pocket - Drew Brees is also 2.3 seconds - or it might mean the Bills pocket collapses pretty quick a significant amount of the time.

 

Bottom line, there are a lot of things that go into ability to beat the blitz.  People like to call out Allen's low completion percentage in losses as though it's causal, but it's more likely that other aspects of the game (such as problematic receiver separation against physical man coverage and heavy pressure) cause low completion percentage.

 

 

Is it just me, or is the inclusion of a Latin phrase in a grammatically problematic sentence making anyone else's head spin?  I have no idea what the last sentence means (and it's not because I lack a smattering of Latin or the ability to diagram complex grammatical sentence constructions).  Slow down, guy.  Few things create a less erudite impression than using big words poorly.

 

 

My guess, and it's just a guess of course, is that the use of the Latin phrase there means the poster is a gladiator.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

My point is you can't use a scientific statistical analysis for NFL QBs. Apply N1 to completions per game, TDs, INTs and you just can't.

 

Let's use "Rating" as a fairly accurate measure of a QB. The 9th best QB is Derek Carr and the 23rd is Fitzy. I don't think they are comparable. 11th is Watson and 20th is Jones. Again not comparable. Even 13th is Wentz and again Jones isn't close this year.

 

I don't see how you can relate 23rd to 9th at all.

 

Power as you describe means a large statistical analysis and creating averages. This cannot be done with NFL QBs.

 

The NFL as I see it has about 3-5 elite QBs (although I'd argue we might be down to 1 soon), about 5-7 franchise guys, and the rest is a carousel of guys who could be backups or borderline starters. Their replacement value is close to equal. Case Keenum could be replaced with Fitz could be replaced with Trubisky, etc. without much change in the season. An elite QB adds 4-7 wins to their team above replacement and a franchise is 2-5 wins above replacement. Now that's me guessing, I have no stats, but that's my own guess based on Rivers and Brees having great years on horrible teams and guys like Matt Cassell being 11-5 on the Patriots or even Stafford this year on the Lions who was playing lights out.

 

A team is a bigger component than just the QB.

I dont know what to say if you dont want use statistical analysis?  Stop using stats in your arguments then I guess (the scientific part doesnt change that its still statistical analysis). 

 

Are we really certain Derek Carr and Fitzy arent comparable?  Carr >> Fitz for completion and also did better in Ints & yards; Fitz had similar TDs and more comebacks (better clutch).  I think Watson is really the one that breaks this analysis, but honestly his ability as a passer is second to what he does with his legs imo so its not totally out of line there (TDs and Ints for those two are very similar; diff is comp %).  I will admit this analysis works better for the 32 teams, but I think works ok here with QBs.  I think you just showed that these are reasonable guidelines and that QB rating is NOT an accurate measure of QB play.

 

Lastly you think there are only 12 franchise QBs in the whole league....?  I think there are more than that; can you elaborate on who those 12 are.  

 

Edit: I move over to QBR which includes running and sacks and Watson moves up ot the good category.  Also Fitz moves all the way up to 9 (right ahead of Carr!!!!).  Allen does drop to the bad category here which is a cause of his sack numbers.  Honestly that was part of the problem I had with him at the end of the year (turning his back to the defense).  Again as a pure thrower Allen is average.  He makes some big plays with his legs but they end up in his passing stats.  Allens bad plays come from his legs and show up in his sacks and fumbles not in rating.  

 

Edited by YattaOkasan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, teef said:

i think josh allen is gooder.

Not just gooder,  but more gooder.

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thebandit27 said:

game.

 

2 hours ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

If you've ever read what I've wrote (not that I'm a worthy read), I've 100% put blame on the coaches/GM for Allen, not Allen. You don't put a raw QB without a good TE who is established and a good run game. It's poorly thought out. I've said he's more like a Big Ben/McNair who needs time to grow.

 

I agree with almost everything you said. I'm not an Allen basher, I'm a Daboll/Beane and McDermott critic for how they run the offense. How do you put a rookie who is not ready next to Peterman? Where is your identity?

 

Guys like Murray and Jackson have been given clear mandates. Allen is floundering not because he can't succeed but because he's not in the position with personnel, schemes, and GM preparing for him. It's like taking your highest pick for a QB ever and hoping he turns out great somehow someway. It's not fair to Allen.

 

Look at the playoff game for example: we had a clear identity for 1 offensive series, and it was awesome. The whole rest of the game the play calling was ridiculous.

This is actually a very good post although I would debate that Allen has his struggles, but is not not floundering...

59 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Good points.  I pointed out elsewhere, I'll point out here that there seems to be some ambiguity about how good Buffalo's OL actually was in providing protection.

 

Allen had one of the longest times to throw in the league - 2.85 seconds per Nextgen Stats (TT).  But that's defined as the time between when the football is snapped, and when the ball leaves the QB's hands.  Since Allen frequently extends plays with his legs, that time would be included in such a stat.  Pro-football-reference (which sources its stats from Sportsradar, which is licensed to distribute NextGen Stats - confused yet?) gives a "Pkttime" stat defined as "time between when the football is snapped and when the pocket collapses OR the ball is thrown" (presumably whichever is less).  The Bills are lowest in the league at 2.3 seconds.

 

That might be good - might mean Josh throws quickly when he stays in the pocket - Drew Brees is also 2.3 seconds - or it might mean the Bills pocket collapses pretty quick a significant amount of the time.

 

Bottom line, there are a lot of things that go into ability to beat the blitz.  People like to call out Allen's low completion percentage in losses as though it's causal, but it's more likely that other aspects of the game (such as problematic receiver separation against physical man coverage and heavy pressure) cause low completion percentage.

 

 

Is it just me, or is the inclusion of a Latin phrase in a grammatically problematic sentence making anyone else's head spin?  I have no idea what the last sentence means (and it's not because I lack a smattering of Latin or the ability to diagram complex grammatical sentence constructions).  Slow down, guy.  Few things create a less erudite impression than using big words poorly.

 

 

Your posts are wonderful, yes politically correct as they need to be as a mod, and Informative, and sometimes downright funny👍Always entertaining.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

"Because the baseline for accuracy in those days was 60%. If you were over 60% you were accurate in the pros. Today that's creeped up to 62-65% coming out of college"

 

The above is a direct quote from you from page 109 of this thread.  So there you go on the 62% thing.

 

 

Hold on because that wasn't your argument and not what I said in context.

Here's what you said that I was arguing: "that 62% is the number that needs to be shown for success in the NFL" <-- I never said that

I never said you needed to be 62% to be successful. That's 2 different arguments. I said to be considered an accurate passer. Luke Falk was one of the accurate QBs in college, I never said he would successful. I've never said accuracy equals success. I did say it's one of the best indicators of it, along with YPA and TD/Int ratios.

 

Quote

 

Your answer confirms what I suspected; you don't know how statistics work.  58.6% is not different than 60% statistically, when looking at Allen's work this past season, because the sample size is not nearly enough to say that.  And that matters.  Just looking at a number and believing it means something is a trap way too many people fall into.  So let's move to the following.  If Allen improved from 58.6% to 72%, would I accept that?  Well, let's do the analysis.  A quick power analysis says that such a difference would have meaning based on a sample size of about 250, or 16 throws a game.  I suspect he would meet that.  So yes, that would be a meaningful improvement. 

 

 

You also confirm that you don't know how statistical analysis works in football.

 

You change the goalposts so quickly it's impossible to make an argument with you.

 

I'll tell you what, when everyone was celebrating Allen after the Cowboys game did you once point out their lack of statistical meaningfulness?

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

Hold on because that wasn't your argument and not what I said in context.

Here's what you said that I was arguing: "that 62% is the number that needs to be shown for success in the NFL" <-- I never said that

I never said you needed to be 62% to be successful. That's 2 different arguments. I said to be considered an accurate passer. Luke Falk was one of the accurate QBs in college, I never said he would successful. I've never said accuracy equals success. I did say it's one of the best indicators of it, along with YPA and TD/Int ratios.

 

 

You also confirm that you don't know how statistical analysis works in football.

 

You change the goalposts so quickly it's impossible to make an argument with you.

 

I'll tell you what, when everyone was celebrating Allen after the Cowboys game did you once point out their lack of statistical meaningfulness?

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

Hold on because that wasn't your argument and not what I said in context.

Here's what you said that I was arguing: "that 62% is the number that needs to be shown for success in the NFL" <-- I never said that

I never said you needed to be 62% to be successful. That's 2 different arguments. I said to be considered an accurate passer. Luke Falk was one of the accurate QBs in college, I never said he would successful. I've never said accuracy equals success. I did say it's one of the best indicators of it, along with YPA and TD/Int ratios.

 

 

You also confirm that you don't know how statistical analysis works in football.

 

You change the goalposts so quickly it's impossible to make an argument with you.

 

I'll tell you what, when everyone was celebrating Allen after the Cowboys game did you once point out their lack of statistical meaningfulness?

 

 

Accuracy is not completion percentage.  That theory has been debunked over and over again.

 

Changing the goalposts?  Hardly.  I have been as consistent as you can be around ehre that statisitics are used very poorly in these conversations because people by and large do not understand statistics.

 

Statistics is a science.  There is no such thing as "football" statistics vs. statistics in general.  That is foolish and why people get misled into thinking some numbers matter in football.  But you have actually said in this thread that #'s are generally true because they generally are.  You said that.  And not to be harsh, but that statement really means you should exclude yourself from discussions involving any form of statistics.  It shows you really don't get it.  

 

Did I celebrate Allen's performance after Dallas?  Sure, because I thought he played pretty good and we won the game.  Did I celebrate after the playoff loss?  No, and there were things Allen did wrong in that game that he needs to improve upon.

 

I think if one looks objectively at Allen his performance in year 2 was better than year one.  His numbers trended up for most passing stats (note I said trending; doesn't mean is was statistically valid but I would rather see a positive vs. negative data trend).  He still needs work on recognition especially pre-snap so he can get set quicker and get the ball out quicker.   needs to read the blitz quicker.  In general he needs what most young QBs need; to get the game to slow down more.  He could benefit from some more talent around him, sure, but every QB can say that.  He could also benefit from a more consistent offensive philosophy, but again that's consistent with many other QBs.  What I do know is that his neuroplasticity is certainly not stopped at this point in his career, and that there is no reason why he can't continue improvement.  Whether he does so or not is on him.  we'll see starting in July.   

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, oldmanfan said:

 

Accuracy is not completion percentage.  That theory has been debunked over and over again.

 

Changing the goalposts?  Hardly.  I have been as consistent as you can be around ehre that statisitics are used very poorly in these conversations because people by and large do not understand statistics.

 

Statistics is a science.  There is no such thing as "football" statistics vs. statistics in general.  That is foolish and why people get misled into thinking some numbers matter in football.  But you have actually said in this thread that #'s are generally true because they generally are.  You said that.  And not to be harsh, but that statement really means you should exclude yourself from discussions involving any form of statistics.  It shows you really don't get it.  

 

Did I celebrate Allen's performance after Dallas?  Sure, because I thought he played pretty good and we won the game.  Did I celebrate after the playoff loss?  No, and there were things Allen did wrong in that game that he needs to improve upon.

 

I think if one looks objectively at Allen his performance in year 2 was better than year one.  His numbers trended up for most passing stats (note I said trending; doesn't mean is was statistically valid but I would rather see a positive vs. negative data trend).  He still needs work on recognition especially pre-snap so he can get set quicker and get the ball out quicker.   needs to read the blitz quicker.  In general he needs what most young QBs need; to get the game to slow down more.  He could benefit from some more talent around him, sure, but every QB can say that.  He could also benefit from a more consistent offensive philosophy, but again that's consistent with many other QBs.  What I do know is that his neuroplasticity is certainly not stopped at this point in his career, and that there is no reason why he can't continue improvement.  Whether he does so or not is on him.  we'll see starting in July.   

 

Here's where you're wrong:

 

So far you've said I stated you need to have 62% accuracy to be successful --> never said that

That I said Allen "cannot" (that's your words) learn --> never said that

 

At this point "Doctor" you should have walked away. If you can't analyze what someone said how you can you make any meaningful statements?

 

Of course you don't puff your chest out with the "I'm a PHD" script when the stats and facts are against you. You said he's trending but guess what? Not according to statistical data. Even the positive trend is statistically meaningless from YOUR position.

 

Oh wait... you want it to have meaning so MAGICALLY stats are used. You use football stats when they benefit you, but fly to your credentials and chest-beating statistics when they don't. Got it.

 

But it's ok dismiss completion %, QB rating, YPG, etc.. It's worked out well for a lot of teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

Says the guy who predicted he would be the MVP in 2019 when he was ranked 26th out of all QBs.

 

Which is closer to delusion: someone who points out he's 26th or the guy who thinks he's 1st out of 32? And the winner is...

 

And this has what to do with the fact that you said the Bills might get a 3rd round pick for Allen.

 

To reiterate, Beane got the 1st pick of the 3rd round for Tyrod Taylor.

 

You believe Allen would be less coveted than Taylor.

 

That's delusional.

 

7 hours ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

Next you told @Mango he was going to be drafted in the top 10. Says who? He was already at #7 and guys slip all of the time. The only guarantee in the draft is that there aren't any guarantees.

 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/heat-index/2018/05/02/arizona-cardinals-nfl-draft-quarterback-josh-allen-josh-rosen-z/574999002/

Never any guarantees, but Cards drafted 10th

 

 

7 hours ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

Your argument, even if valid, is like listing a house 3 bed 2 bath house in rural Buffalo for $5 million dollars and then when someone comes to see it you tell them "Well it was $5 million, we've really dropped the price".

 

Turrible analogy.

 

Again. This wasn't the EJ debacle. Allen was getting drafted in the 1st round.

 

 

7 hours ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

Big arm QBs without accuracy have been the disaster of the NFL drafts for decades. It's like a who's who of busts.

 

Again. Yours is the analytics argument. I understand it because it was what I looked to before the draft and why I hated the Allen pick initially.

 

But the analytics argument really just doesn't fit with Allen.

 

7 hours ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

Last, you showed me some of his best throws under pressure. Sure, they exist, but that's not what neuroplasticity is. It's the reason why Allen is blitzed so frequently by teams like the Ravens and Pats*. He's the 30th worst QB under blitz pressure:
https://www.milehighreport.com/2019/11/2/20943679/who-should-you-not-blitz

He's 30th against the blitz. 30th. Stats aren't anecdotal videos. Stats show what happens under normative circumstances. He completed 7 of 24 against the blitz against the Ravens.

 

Further proving to me there's just no point discussing this with you as you are absolutely dead set on the notion that analytics prove everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...