Josh Allen "Prove it" Season In Year 3

[GunnerBill]

Just now, JaCrispy said:

People may agree or disagree with your opinion on Josh....however, one thing that is undeniable is that your post makes logical sense.

 

I think it makes theoretical sense. I think in practice it would be a bad strategy. And that is leaving the Josh issue totally to one side. 

[FireChans]

10 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

People may agree or disagree with your opinion on Josh....however, one thing that is undeniable is that your post makes logical sense.

It’s plausible but not practical. If the Eagles let Wentz walk this year rather than paying him, who would they have a chance to draft? Especially considering they traded assets for Wentz in the first place. And then they are going to play out their aging stars last years with a rookie QB trying to learn how to play in the NFL? It begins to defy logic when you actually attempt to apply it.

Edited April 14, 2020 by FireChans

[FireChans]

27 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

There just are not enough good rookies in a 4 or 5 year period for me to advise a GM who has one of those four guys that it would be a good idea. 

You would think Bills fans of all people would see the glaring issues with a “let a good QB walk and just find another in the draft,” strategy. I mean, we tried to “just find another one” for how many years?

[JaCrispy]

48 minutes ago, FireChans said:

It’s plausible but not practical. If the Eagles let Wentz walk this year rather than paying him, who would they have a chance to draft? Especially considering they traded assets for Wentz in the first place. And then they are going to play out their aging stars last years with a rookie QB trying to learn how to play in the NFL? It begins to defy logic when you actually attempt to apply it.

I see your point...hypothetically speaking, of course, Im curious if the experiment would be better suited to a team that drafted a QB every other year...that way, if a team is not completely sold on the starter, they could potentially trade him for whatever assets they can get...then bump the backup to the starter position...that way you’re not looking to draft an immediate starter...But, you are always grooming the eventual starter...??‍♂️
 

Certainly interesting to try to conceptualize...

Edited April 14, 2020 by JaCrispy

[Straight Hucklebuck]

49 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I think the issue is that these guys look good when those players are on a rookie deal making $4-8 mil year with elite teams surrounding them.

 

The last few years has pretty clearly shown that when you pay these guys $35 mil/year and have to start sacrificing other parts of your roster to make the numbers work, most of these teams take a step backwards because ultimately the QB that they gave the huge contract to didn't actually deserve it.

 

6 of the 10 highest paid QBs in the NFL last year didn't make the playoffs. That's crazy to me. 

The Cowboys cooked themselves. They paid Elliott top dollar and just paid Amari Cooper. So now it makes no sense to start over with a cheap rookie. Jones is obviously trying to follow the Ailman, Emmitt, Irvin model.

 

I read on PFT that Dak won’t participate in offseason activities until he has a new deal. Like he’s done anything to deserve being the highest paid NFL player ever. 

Edited April 14, 2020 by Straight Hucklebuck

[Billl]

2 hours ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

 

When teams like the Colts are convinced Rivers will win a Playoff game or take their franchise anywhere, I don't see the NFL adopting a progressive view on this for awhile. 

 

The Titans, as far as they went last year, cling to Tannehill and Henry to try and recapture the magic of 2019.

 

Would the Panthers be better trying to get a rookie QB or paying Bridgewater a ton of money? 

 

NFL teams seem to take known commodities, even if they are average at the QB position, and don't move off them in practice.  

 

 

 

 

It’s simple math, really.  There are 32 teams, and there are maybe 10-20 people on the planet capable of being a franchise QB.  Throwing numbers at the situation doesn’t change the equation.  
 

It’s interesting to me how little ink gets devoted to what the Chiefs did.  They had a franchise QB playing at his peak, and they still made a huge move to get someone they saw as a superstar.  I don’t think that had ever been done before, and I know it hasn’t been done since.  It was brilliant because it worked, but I don’t know who has the balls to try something similar.  It does make sense that bringing a young QB in when you’ve got the ability to ease him into a good situation rather than throw him into a mess is a winning strategy, but it’s a luxury that few teams have.

 

I wouldn’t be shocked to see KC draft someone like Anthony Gordon in the 5th round, groom him, and trade him for a high draft pick to a QB needy team that doesn’t have the time/ability to groom their own (similar to what the Patriots did with Brissett and Jimmy G.)

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

The Cowboys cooked themselves. They paid Elliott top dollar and just paid Amari Cooper. So now it makes no sense to start over with a cheap rookie. Jones is obviously trying to follow the Ailman, Emmitt, Irvin model.

 

I read on PFT that Dak won’t participate in offseason activities until he has a new deal. Like he’s done anything to deserve being the highest paid NFL player ever. 

Neurosurgeons make more than family practice docs because their jobs are more complex.  NFL teams pay QBs more because they have a similar mindset.   Doesn’t make it right of course.

 

NFL teams copy cat too much.  If I were running a team I’d give serious thought to going against the grain and basing my offense on a very strong running game.  Take Singleton, get a bruising big guy that can batter a defense, and use Allen and Diggs et al when the D goes all in against the run.  Think ‘72 Dolphins.

[FireChans]

14 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

I see your point...hypothetically speaking, of course, Im curious if the experiment would be better suited to a team that drafted a QB every other year...that way, if a team is not completely sold on the starter, they could potentially trade him for whatever assets they can get...then then bump the backup to the starter position...that way you’re to looking to the draft an immediate starter...But, you are always grooming the eventual starter...??‍♂️
 

Certainly interesting to try to conceptualize...

Even then. Take a look at say, the Seahawks. They grab Russell in 2012. They didn’t have a 1st rounder in 2014,  so at best they take Carr or Jimmy G with a trade up (but why?), at worst, Logan Thomas, Tom Savage, Murray, McCarron, Mettenberger. Now 2016, they have no chance at Goff or Wentz due to picking 31st in the first. Which means if they don’t draft Dak, they are basically getting a bum. And even if they draft Dak/Carr/Jimmy G, they would easily be worse off.

[Straight Hucklebuck]

15 minutes ago, Billl said:

It’s simple math, really.  There are 32 teams, and there are maybe 10-20 people on the planet capable of being a franchise QB.  Throwing numbers at the situation doesn’t change the equation.  
 

It’s interesting to me how little ink gets devoted to what the Chiefs did.  They had a franchise QB playing at his peak, and they still made a huge move to get someone they saw as a superstar.  I don’t think that had ever been done before, and I know it hasn’t been done since.  It was brilliant because it worked, but I don’t know who has the balls to try something similar.  It does make sense that bringing a young QB in when you’ve got the ability to ease him into a good situation rather than throw him into a mess is a winning strategy, but it’s a luxury that few teams have.

 

I wouldn’t be shocked to see KC draft someone like Anthony Gordon in the 5th round, groom him, and trade him for a high draft pick to a QB needy team that doesn’t have the time/ability to groom their own (similar to what the Patriots did with Brissett and Jimmy G.)

You’re right, it’s not common, when something like this has happened before, Rodgers drafted while Favre was on the roster, or Manning leaving Indianapolis, the incumbent was in their late 30’s, and it was clear that the end was in sight. 
 

The Bengals may be the most similar. They had a QB that has had good statistical seasons and made the Playoffs 5-years in a row, but their roster maxed out when their secondary started to get old, and they let Marvin Jones and M Sanu walk in the same free agency, along with Whitworth on the offensive line because he was getting too old ala London Fletcher.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Straight Hucklebuck

[Billl]

1 hour ago, jrober38 said:

 

I see very few "franchise" QBs across the NFL who can carry a franchise while making $35-40 million a season.

 

If we could give Josh an extension at say... $20 mil/season, I'd do that, but I don't see how it makes any sense to pay a guy top money when they're not a top player.

 

I feel the same way about the contracts given to Wentz, Prescott, Goff, Cousins, etc. I think those mega contracts for guys who aren't truly "elite" are more detrimental to their teams than just trying their luck on a different rookie QB. 

What does Cousins have to do for people to start respecting him? He’s thrown 56 TDs and 15 INTs in his two seasons with Minnesota. He threw for nearly 5,000 yards for the freaking Redskins.  He’s Phillip Rivers.

[Mango]

8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Neurosurgeons make more than family practice docs because their jobs are more complex.  NFL teams pay QBs more because they have a similar mindset.   Doesn’t make it right of course.

 

NFL teams copy cat too much.  If I were running a team I’d give serious thought to going against the grain and basing my offense on a very strong running game.  Take Singleton, get a bruising big guy that can batter a defense, and use Allen and Diggs et al when the D goes all in against the run.  Think ‘72 Dolphins.

 

Belichick has been doing this for years. As defenses got bigger he beat them over the top with Moss and carved them up with a shifty Welker. As defenses have gotten quicker to account for gaudy passing numbers he has been pounding them with the run. He has been just ahead of the curve for 20 years now. It is all about timing your system with the league properly. The Bills were much too late to react in years past. 

 

In the last playoffs: 

4/12 teams were in the top 12 in passing yards

8/12 teams were in the top 12 in rushing yards

 

Interestingly though

8/12 teams in the playoffs are in the top 12 for PTD

7/12 teams in the playoffs are in the top 12 for RTD

 

Obviously a 1000 foot view, but even with huge passing yardages in the NFL, teams are becoming much more reliant on the run to find success. But they are doing a large percentage of their scoring through the air, regardless of how they rack up yardage. 

[Billl]

26 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

The Cowboys cooked themselves. They paid Elliott top dollar and just paid Amari Cooper. So now it makes no sense to start over with a cheap rookie. Jones is obviously trying to follow the Ailman, Emmitt, Irvin model.

 

I read on PFT that Dak won’t participate in offseason activities until he has a new deal. Like he’s done anything to deserve being the highest paid NFL player ever. 

He’s given them 4 years of top 10 QB production for pennies on the dollar.  His performance has been worth easily $30,000,000 in terms of value per year.  He’s averaged less than $3,000,000.  He’s damn right that he deserves $35,000,000.  What have they done with that $120,000,000 in surplus value that leads anyone to believe that the Cowboys can build a competitive team around him if he makes $32,000,000 but not if he makes $35,000,000?  Good luck finding another 26 year old QB to give you 30 TDs and 5,000 yards without turning the ball over who doesn’t want to be paid elite money.  

[Billl]

11 minutes ago, Mango said:

In the last playoffs: 

4/12 teams were in the top 12 in passing yards

8/12 teams were in the top 12 in rushing yards

 

Interestingly though

8/12 teams in the playoffs are in the top 12 for PTD

7/12 teams in the playoffs are in the top 12 for RTD

 

Obviously a 1000 foot view, but even with huge passing yardages in the NFL, teams are becoming much more reliant on the run to find success. But they are doing a large percentage of their scoring through the air, regardless of how they rack up yardage. 

That’s a chicken/egg situation.  Teams aren’t winning because they run.  They run because they’re winning.  The teams who run the most kneel downs have the highest winning percentage, but that doesn’t mean teams need to implement kneel-heavy offenses.  As your last sentence implies, teams throw to score and run to kill the clock.

[Shaw66]

3 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

 

1. I think the age of the "franchise QB" is coming to an end. 

 

I've been away from this thread for a while and there are some interesting things being said here.   I hope I can come back later and read through all of it.  

 

In the meantime, I wanted to comment about this statement.   I think it's at the core of the discussion, and I completely disagree with the notion that the franchise QB era is ending.   I think all that's happening is that you and I and all the rest of us can't see yet who the next franchise quarterbacks are.  

 

I think that NFL football has been on a one-way street for 70 years, and it's going to continue.   The game keeps evolving, and the evolution is making the game continuously more complex.   It's not going back.  Coaches keep inventing new techniques, and the techniques never go away.    So when the standard QB option sweep was invented 70 years ago, it was a devastating weapon until people figured out how to stop it.   And at the highest level, the pros, they learned to stop simply because the defender who was the option read was so athletic that with training he could cover both options.   But the option sweep didn't go away; it just became part of the repertoire.   Offenses have to be able to run it and defenses have to be able stop it.   

 

The same was true with the "rub" pass patterns.   They worked until defenses figured out a scheme for beating the pick.  The same will be true with run-pass options.  They work now, but defenses are in the process of figuring out how to stop them.   Teams will still run those plays, but they can't be the mainstay of your offense, because if you're running it all the time, defenses will stop you.   

 

The point is, offenses keep getting more complicated, and defenses add complexity to stop the offenses.  It's a one-way street.   Yes, colleges have these wide-open offenses and guys like Mayfield and Murray and others are truly explosive running them, but colleges play those offenses because if you have the right QB, none of your opponents have enough talent on defense to stop them.   The QB's athletic ability is enough to win, and the offenses are simple enough that most good athletes can learn them.   

 

When those QBs get to the NFL, it's different.   There are 11 elite athletes on defense, and the coaches can figure out an infinite number of combinations of athletes and strategies that will stop the QB.   Once that happens, the QB has to understand the defense and adjust.   In short, once that happens, the QB has to learn to play the same game that all the other QBs are playing.   

 

Part of it is simply the complexity of having 11 defenders.   In the NBA, if you double team Hardin, he doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to find the open man.   He's trained to do it, and it's relatively easy for him.   But in the NFL, if the defense spies the running QB with a combination of players, so the QB doesn't know where the spy is coming from and where to attack as a result, it isn't so easy.   

 

It's not going to get simpler.   And if it isn't going to get simpler, having a QB who understands the whole offense and the whole defense, who can read and attack defenses pre- and post-snap, is still the pre-eminent weapon.   You might win a Super Bowl with Matt Stafford, but it you might win four with Drew Brees.   The traditional franchise qbs are weapons that are in a completely different league than players in any other position.   Nobody talks about JJ Watt as a "franchise" defensive tackle.   Best in the league for a few years, but having him on the roster doesn't make your team competitive for ten years.   It doesn't even necessarily make your team competitive from game to game.  Franchise QBs make your team relevant the day training camp opens, they make your team a threat to win it all. 

 

The consequence of that, despite what you say, is that GMs are not going to look for a string of Bridgewaters and Foleses and other guys, pay them $15 million a year, and hope that the GM and coach can put together a collection of other players and somehow win a Super Bowl.   It happens, of course, as it did with Flacco, but the GMs are going to continue to look for the Breeses, because if you can get a Drew Brees with a coach to go with him, you have ten years where you have a shot, multiple shots, even consecutive shots.   

 

The consequence of that is that they GMs are going to continue to write $30 million contracts to the Goffs of the world, not because they're that much better than the Foleses, but because they still have the potential to be better than the Foleses, the potential to become franchise QBs.   The QBs who can process information quickly and accurately, who can make accurate decisions quickly and who can execute once the decision has been made are invaluable, and GMs will continue to make fools of themselves going after guys who might be one of those.  

[Straight Hucklebuck]

47 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Neurosurgeons make more than family practice docs because their jobs are more complex.  NFL teams pay QBs more because they have a similar mindset.   Doesn’t make it right of course.

 

NFL teams copy cat too much.  If I were running a team I’d give serious thought to going against the grain and basing my offense on a very strong running game.  Take Singleton, get a bruising big guy that can batter a defense, and use Allen and Diggs et al when the D goes all in against the run.  Think ‘72 Dolphins.

It can work, you need a strong offensive line, a QB that doesn't turn the ball over, and a defense that can hold opponents to under 16 points per game.

 

It's a hard way to win though. Showing up on Sunday and hoping to run over your opponent. 

 

The Titans got far with it, the Ravens are dynamic with it, the Bills lead the league in rushing during the Rex days but didn't have the defense to fall back on. 

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

It can work, you need a strong offensive line, a QB that doesn't turn the ball over, and a defense that can hold opponents to under 16 points per game.

 

It's a hard way to win though. Showing up on Sunday and hoping to run over your opponent. 

 

The Titans got far with it, the Ravens are dynamic with it, the Bills lead the league in rushing during the Rex days but didn't have the defense to fall back on. 

 

It requires a lot of pieces and in the free agency era it is hard to sustain over more than a 2-3 year period. You gotta pay an elite back, a line, a QB, a receiver who can win deep and then enough pieces on defense to stop them scoring. 

[Mr. K]

I'm caught up on what is going to show me more; More efficient offense or enough wins because of Josh to get in the playoffs. If JA can manage to get the team in position 21+ on the board weekly I'm sold. My expectation is that he has a marginal tick up and if thats the cause of a losing season it might be time to consider another prospect regardless of if he is starting or not the following year. I want JA to be great but he still has to prove he can make the right decisions with the ball.

[jrober38]

2 hours ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

The Cowboys cooked themselves. They paid Elliott top dollar and just paid Amari Cooper. So now it makes no sense to start over with a cheap rookie. Jones is obviously trying to follow the Ailman, Emmitt, Irvin model.

 

I read on PFT that Dak won’t participate in offseason activities until he has a new deal. Like he’s done anything to deserve being the highest paid NFL player ever. 

 

Exactly. 

 

Dallas has the 17th pick and this was a deep free agent group of QBs. 

 

Some teams definitely need a QB, but maybe they can make a play to move up for Justin Herbert or Bryce Love.

 

Either of those guys at $5 mil/year seems like a better option than Prescott at $40 mil/year, IMO. 

2 hours ago, Billl said:

What does Cousins have to do for people to start respecting him? He’s thrown 56 TDs and 15 INTs in his two seasons with Minnesota. He threw for nearly 5,000 yards for the freaking Redskins.  He’s Phillip Rivers.

 

Beat good teams. 

[Billl]

6 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

Beat good teams. 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=401131038

[jrober38]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

I've been away from this thread for a while and there are some interesting things being said here.   I hope I can come back later and read through all of it.  

 

In the meantime, I wanted to comment about this statement.   I think it's at the core of the discussion, and I completely disagree with the notion that the franchise QB era is ending.   I think all that's happening is that you and I and all the rest of us can't see yet who the next franchise quarterbacks are.  

 

I think that NFL football has been on a one-way street for 70 years, and it's going to continue.   The game keeps evolving, and the evolution is making the game continuously more complex.   It's not going back.  Coaches keep inventing new techniques, and the techniques never go away.    So when the standard QB option sweep was invented 70 years ago, it was a devastating weapon until people figured out how to stop it.   And at the highest level, the pros, they learned to stop simply because the defender who was the option read was so athletic that with training he could cover both options.   But the option sweep didn't go away; it just became part of the repertoire.   Offenses have to be able to run it and defenses have to be able stop it.   

 

The same was true with the "rub" pass patterns.   They worked until defenses figured out a scheme for beating the pick.  The same will be true with run-pass options.  They work now, but defenses are in the process of figuring out how to stop them.   Teams will still run those plays, but they can't be the mainstay of your offense, because if you're running it all the time, defenses will stop you.   

 

The point is, offenses keep getting more complicated, and defenses add complexity to stop the offenses.  It's a one-way street.   Yes, colleges have these wide-open offenses and guys like Mayfield and Murray and others are truly explosive running them, but colleges play those offenses because if you have the right QB, none of your opponents have enough talent on defense to stop them.   The QB's athletic ability is enough to win, and the offenses are simple enough that most good athletes can learn them.   

 

When those QBs get to the NFL, it's different.   There are 11 elite athletes on defense, and the coaches can figure out an infinite number of combinations of athletes and strategies that will stop the QB.   Once that happens, the QB has to understand the defense and adjust.   In short, once that happens, the QB has to learn to play the same game that all the other QBs are playing.   

 

Part of it is simply the complexity of having 11 defenders.   In the NBA, if you double team Hardin, he doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to find the open man.   He's trained to do it, and it's relatively easy for him.   But in the NFL, if the defense spies the running QB with a combination of players, so the QB doesn't know where the spy is coming from and where to attack as a result, it isn't so easy.   

 

It's not going to get simpler.   And if it isn't going to get simpler, having a QB who understands the whole offense and the whole defense, who can read and attack defenses pre- and post-snap, is still the pre-eminent weapon.   You might win a Super Bowl with Matt Stafford, but it you might win four with Drew Brees.   The traditional franchise qbs are weapons that are in a completely different league than players in any other position.   Nobody talks about JJ Watt as a "franchise" defensive tackle.   Best in the league for a few years, but having him on the roster doesn't make your team competitive for ten years.   It doesn't even necessarily make your team competitive from game to game.  Franchise QBs make your team relevant the day training camp opens, they make your team a threat to win it all. 

 

The consequence of that, despite what you say, is that GMs are not going to look for a string of Bridgewaters and Foleses and other guys, pay them $15 million a year, and hope that the GM and coach can put together a collection of other players and somehow win a Super Bowl.   It happens, of course, as it did with Flacco, but the GMs are going to continue to look for the Breeses, because if you can get a Drew Brees with a coach to go with him, you have ten years where you have a shot, multiple shots, even consecutive shots.   

 

The consequence of that is that they GMs are going to continue to write $30 million contracts to the Goffs of the world, not because they're that much better than the Foleses, but because they still have the potential to be better than the Foleses, the potential to become franchise QBs.   The QBs who can process information quickly and accurately, who can make accurate decisions quickly and who can execute once the decision has been made are invaluable, and GMs will continue to make fools of themselves going after guys who might be one of those.  

 

I get what you're saying, I just think the premise is totally flawed. 

 

Potential rarely materializes at the NFL level. I mean, how many big, strong, athletic QBs have been picked in the first round of the draft over the past 20 years who went on to never reach their potential and bust?

 

A ton.

 

I think ultimately the NFL is dominated by egos. There are egos on the field, on the sidelines and in the press box. For the egos in the press box, nothing gets them off more by buying in on a guy because of his potential because if they hit you look like a genius. Everyone wants to think they're the best/smartest in the league at their job. 

 

I've maintained for years that the NFL constantly tries to over complicate things and the result is often terrible.

 

The changing rules of the game I think play the biggest part in why I think this process is becoming more and more easy for QBs to come in and play relatively well immediately. This isn't like 1985 where guys were expected to come into the NFL and sit on the bench for a couple years because the college game was so far behind the pro game. 

 

NFL and college passing concepts are more alike than ever and as a result I think it's easier to find a serviceable QB who can post a QB Rating between 85 and 94 and lead a really good supporting cast to a 10 win season. Those guys might never be elite but they more than earn their pay cheque while on a rookie deal.

 

The problems for most teams seem to start when a team has a QB making $35 mil/year and other parts of the roster get stripped down to accommodate that contract. 

 

5 minutes ago, Billl said:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=401131038

 

Consistently.

 

The following week he was a train wreck. 

[Straight Hucklebuck]

13 minutes ago, Billl said:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=401131038

 

I started a response to this earlier. 

 

I think that's the reputation with Cousins. When the lights of Primetime come on, he shrinks away. That's why that Saints win is so impressive.  

 

Dalton has a similar reputation. 

 

I think it's difficult. One team wins the Super Bowl every year. So everyone else falls short of the goal. With Cousins you have a guy who is 31 years old, and you're trying to project whether he can win you a Super Bowl. Generally, you would think he is as good now as as he's ever going to be, and some of his core is being chipped away with the Diggs trade and Emerson G hanging out there. 

 

Edited April 14, 2020 by Straight Hucklebuck

[Billl]

18 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

Consistently.

 

The following week he was a train wreck. 

No he wasn’t.  He was 21/31 with 1 TD and 1 turnover on the road against the best defense in football.  They lost because they had 21 yards rushing and gave up 6 sacks.

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, Billl said:

No he wasn’t.  He was 21/31 with 1 TD and 1 turnover on the road against the best defense in football.  They lost because they had 21 yards rushing and gave up 6 sacks.

 

And gave up 180 yards rushing. 

[Shaw66]

5 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I get what you're saying, I just think the premise is totally flawed. 

 

Potential rarely materializes at the NFL level. I mean, how many big, strong, athletic QBs have been picked in the first round of the draft over the past 20 years who went on to never reach their potential and bust?

 

A ton.

 

I think ultimately the NFL is dominated by egos. There are egos on the field, on the sidelines and in the press box. For the egos in the press box, nothing gets them off more by buying in on a guy because of his potential because if they hit you look like a genius. Everyone wants to think they're the best/smartest in the league at their job. 

 

I've maintained for years that the NFL constantly tries to over complicate things and the result is often terrible.

 

The changing rules of the game I think play the biggest part in why I think this process is becoming more and more easy for QBs to come in and play relatively well immediately. This isn't like 1985 where guys were expected to come into the NFL and sit on the bench for a couple years because the college game was so far behind the pro game. 

 

NFL and college passing concepts are more alike than ever and as a result I think it's easier to find a serviceable QB who can post a QB Rating between 85 and 94 and lead a really good supporting cast to a 10 win season. Those guys might never be elite but they more than earn their pay cheque while on a rookie deal.

 

The problems for most teams seem to start when a team has a QB making $35 mil/year and other parts of the roster get stripped down to accommodate that contract. 

 

 

Consistently.

 

The following week he was a train wreck. 

Thanks.   That's a really good explanation of what you mean.    I understand, and I don't disagree.   

 

But I think there's a little more going on than that.  Your explanation that the rule changes have made it easier for college QBs to transition must be true, because you're right about how long guys had to be understudies in the NFL 40 years ago.  That's interesting.    What I think also is going on is by the time that college guy has been in the NFL for five years, he sure better have learned how to play complex offense, because whatever edge he got from athleticism and scheme in college and for a year or two in the NFL, whatever that edge was is going to be gone.  The defenses will adjust and will take that edge away from you.   Everyone will do it to you, and you'd better be able to do what the traditional franchise QBs do - read, diagnose, make decisions in real time, because if you can't, you're done starting.  

 

If you're correct, teams will figure out that it's more efficient, in terms of building a winner, to get a good kid, run his special stuff for a few years, see if you can surround him with good pieces, and go for the Lombardi.   Then when the kid fails, you go get another one and do it again.   That's not crazy.    I just think coaches and GMs would rather have a team with true franchise QB and spend ten or 15 years building and rebuilding supporting cast around him.   That's what the Patriots and Steelers and Colts have been doing.   

 

I think McBeane clearly are of the view that they want to run a system that always has the next guy in line, waiting to play, at every position except QB.   They aren't going to fall in love with a player at any position and overpay him.  They won't do it; they'll go with the next man up.   At QB, I think they want the franchise QB.   Beane has said at least a few times that he hopes Allen makes him start writing some big checks.    What does that mean?   It means above all else, he wants a franchise QB.   He wants the long-term guy. 

 

f you're right, Beane is behind the times.   I mean that seriously.  It's certainly possible that McBeane are really wired into 2010 thinking about football, they're evangelists for that style, but the league is moving on.   The style still works, once every fifty years or so, but it's not the most effective style.  That would be really cruel to Bills fans - to have been wishing and hoping to get on the modern football train instead of mired where we were for all those years.  Then a couple of guys finally come along and show us how to get on the train, only to discover that although that train used to go to Canton, now it just goes to a landfill in central Pennsylvania.  

 

 

 

[Straight Hucklebuck]

13 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

The changing rules of the game I think play the biggest part in why I think this process is becoming more and more easy for QBs to come in and play relatively well immediately. This isn't like 1985 where guys were expected to come into the NFL and sit on the bench for a couple years because the college game was so far behind the pro game. 

 

Shaw66 and jrober38, this is a point that I have maintained as well when fans throw out things like Jim Kelly's second year compared to Allen's second year, or Joe Montana completed 61% of passes.

 

John Elway eclipsed 4,000 yards once in 16 years and never had a 30 TD season, and only 6/16 times went over 20 TD's passing. 

 

The statistical bar is higher now that 1992. Back in the day, 3,000 yards and 20 TD's passing, you were a solid NFL QB. Nowadays, that puts you in the Bottom 10 as far as passers.

 

What I don't understand is what a team like the Colts are doing? Why are they paying a washed up Rivers for a year? To do what? He is clearly declining. 

 

In Buffalo, we thumb our noses at Jameis Winston, but really are you capped anymore with him than Allen? I think he's being undervalued. Cam looks shot, he peaked, his best days are over. Winston's decision making is poor, but he makes things happen and his passing stats would almost assuredly be better than Allen's. His defense allowed 28 ppg, the Bills defense allowed 16 ppg. 

 

So jrober38's points make you think, do you pay Allen a mega contract, or do you try and do better? For that reason 2020 is the year for Allen. He doesn't get a free year to plateau.  

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

 

Shaw66 and jrober38, this is a point that I have maintained as well when fans throw out things like Jim Kelly's second year compared to Allen's second year, or Joe Montana completed 61% of passes.

 

John Elway eclipsed 4,000 yards once in 16 years and never had a 30 TD season, and only 6/16 times went over 20 TD's passing. 

 

The statistical bar is higher now that 1992. Back in the day, 3,000 yards and 20 TD's passing, you were a solid NFL QB. Nowadays, that puts you in the Bottom 10 as far as passers.

 

What I don't understand is what a team like the Colts are doing? Why are they paying a washed up Rivers for a year? To do what? He is clearly declining. 

 

In Buffalo, we thumb our noses at Jameis Winston, but really are you capped anymore with him than Allen? I think he's being undervalued. Cam looks shot, he peaked, his best days are over. Winston's decision making is poor, but he makes things happen and his passing stats would almost assuredly be better than Allen's. His defense allowed 28 ppg, the Bills defense allowed 16 ppg. 

 

So jrober38's points make you think, do you pay Allen a mega contract, or do you try and do better? For that reason 2020 is the year for Allen. He doesn't get a free year to plateau.  

 

On Allen I agree. But @jrober38 wouldn't pay Josh unless he has proved to be elite by the end of his rookie deal. I don't agree with that. I think if he is in that next group, sort of 6-12 in the NFL performing the way Dak performed in 2019 I would pay him. 

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

 

Shaw66 and jrober38, this is a point that I have maintained as well when fans throw out things like Jim Kelly's second year compared to Allen's second year, or Joe Montana completed 61% of passes.

 

John Elway eclipsed 4,000 yards once in 16 years and never had a 30 TD season, and only 6/16 times went over 20 TD's passing. 

 

The statistical bar is higher now that 1992. Back in the day, 3,000 yards and 20 TD's passing, you were a solid NFL QB. Nowadays, that puts you in the Bottom 10 as far as passers.

 

What I don't understand is what a team like the Colts are doing? Why are they paying a washed up Rivers for a year? To do what? He is clearly declining. 

 

In Buffalo, we thumb our noses at Jameis Winston, but really are you capped anymore with him than Allen? I think he's being undervalued. Cam looks shot, he peaked, his best days are over. Winston's decision making is poor, but he makes things happen and his passing stats would almost assuredly be better than Allen's. His defense allowed 28 ppg, the Bills defense allowed 16 ppg. 

 

So jrober38's points make you think, do you pay Allen a mega contract, or do you try and do better? For that reason 2020 is the year for Allen. He doesn't get a free year to plateau.  

Interesting thoughts.  

 

First, although a lot of people complain about it, the passer rating is a very good tool.  The passer rating gives us numbers that correlate very well with good quarterbacking.   The best QBs have the best passer ratings, more or less, and not many bad QBs have good passer ratings.   So, I think if you want compare over eras, it's much better to look at passer rating.    And not to compare raw passer rating numbers, but to look at the QB's rank in terms of passer rating each season.   When you do that, you see that the best QBs had the best passer ratings in their era.  

 

So in Elway's case, I don't care about the number of his attempts and completions, because he played in a different era.  Of course they won't compare.   But I looked a few weeks ago at his rank in the league in passer rating throughout his career.    He was essentially 15th to 25th in passer rating rank for eight seasons, and then he was top ten four years in a row and won two Super Bowls.   Now, that's a pretty dramatic jump to have made, and no one in this era is waiting eight years for his QB to develop, but the point is with some QBs you simply don't know yet when the time comes to sign the second deal.  You just don't know.   I don't like Winston, but I hear what your saying.   Can I tell with a certainty to three years from Winston will not be a star in the league?   No, I can't.   He's done some really impressive looking stuff.   

 

I think that's exactly the point.    Jameis Winston wins the Super Bowl in three years, and the career of the GM who let him go is over.   And although I like Allen's chances better than Winston's, their stories in the pros are similar.   

 

As for Rivers, I haven't understood why he's been on the field for the last three years.   He just didn't have it, stats or not. 

[Shaw66]

9 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

On Allen I agree. But @jrober38 wouldn't pay Josh unless he has proved to be elite by the end of his rookie deal. I don't agree with that. I think if he is in that next group, sort of 6-12 in the NFL performing the way Dak performed in 2019 I would pay him. 

Right, but that's the end of his rookie deal, not the end of the 2020 season.  The original question here was is 2020 a "prove it" year for Allen.   I think definitely not.   Unless he crashes and burns in 2020, he's the starter in 2021, and that season, his fourth, is when I'd want him to be in that range - 6-12 in the league.   

 

 

I think it's important that in 2020 Allen is better than, rather than simply as good as, the 2019 Allen.   If he shows no improvement, that would be a bad sign.  rober would say, and I would agree, I guess, that you'd better start looking for the next one.   A second or third round pick.   

[Stank_Nasty]

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

As for Rivers, I haven't understood why he's been on the field for the last three years.   He just didn't have it, stats or not. 

Rivers put up 4,500 yds with 28 td and only 10 int while the chargers went 9-7 in 2017 and then in 2018 he went for 4300 32td and 12 int with a 105 rating as they went 12-4.... last 3 years isn’t quite accurate IMO. Colts have a way better OL than the chargers and I think they can win quite a few games with rivers... for at least a season. 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

Right, but that's the end of his rookie deal, not the end of the 2020 season.  The original question here was is 2020 a "prove it" year for Allen.   I think definitely not.   Unless he crashes and burns in 2020, he's the starter in 2021, and that season, his fourth, is when I'd want him to be in that range - 6-12 in the league.   

 

 

I think it's important that in 2020 Allen is better than, rather than simply as good as, the 2019 Allen.   If he shows no improvement, that would be a bad sign.  rober would say, and I would agree, I guess, that you'd better start looking for the next one.   A second or third round pick.   

 

For me he has to show improvement in 2020. And he has to not be holding the Bills back because I don't think a lot else will hold them back from at least winning a playoff game. But I agree as long as he continues to move forwards it isn't quite make or break. 

1 minute ago, Stank_Nasty said:

Rivers put up 4,500 yds with 28 td and only 10 int while the chargers went 9-7 in 2017 and then in 2018 he went for 4300 32td and 12 int with a 105 rating as they went 12-4.... last 3 years isn’t quite accurate IMO. Colts have a way better OL than the chargers and I think they can win quite a few games with rivers... for at least a season. 

 

Agree he was fine in 17 and 18. I do think Rivers hit the wall though last year. I think his arm noticeably lost some pop. Started to see a few Peyton Manning ducks. 

[Stank_Nasty]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

For me he has to show improvement in 2020. And he has to not be holding the Bills back because I don't think a lot else will hold them back from at least winning a playoff game. But I agree as long as he continues to move forwards it isn't quite make or break. 

Heck, IMO if he only improved on his deep tosses and everything else held serve he’d be cemented in the 12-16 range this year. Luckily I think that’s not the only thing that improves. 

[Dr. Who]

I think there needs to be improvement and I am expecting that. If Allen is the same player he was in 2019 with better players around him, that's a red flag. I am somewhat concerned about Daboll's playcalling. I also think it's important to have another good rb brought in to pair with Singletary. I am not waiting to the mid to late rounds to pick up a fella. 3rd round latest, imo. 

[FireChans]

26 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Interesting thoughts.  

 

First, although a lot of people complain about it, the passer rating is a very good tool.  The passer rating gives us numbers that correlate very well with good quarterbacking.   The best QBs have the best passer ratings, more or less, and not many bad QBs have good passer ratings.   So, I think if you want compare over eras, it's much better to look at passer rating.    And not to compare raw passer rating numbers, but to look at the QB's rank in terms of passer rating each season.   When you do that, you see that the best QBs had the best passer ratings in their era.  

 

So in Elway's case, I don't care about the number of his attempts and completions, because he played in a different era.  Of course they won't compare.   But I looked a few weeks ago at his rank in the league in passer rating throughout his career.    He was essentially 15th to 25th in passer rating rank for eight seasons, and then he was top ten four years in a row and won two Super Bowls.   Now, that's a pretty dramatic jump to have made, and no one in this era is waiting eight years for his QB to develop, but the point is with some QBs you simply don't know yet when the time comes to sign the second deal.  You just don't know.   I don't like Winston, but I hear what your saying.   Can I tell with a certainty to three years from Winston will not be a star in the league?   No, I can't.   He's done some really impressive looking stuff.   

 

I think that's exactly the point.    Jameis Winston wins the Super Bowl in three years, and the career of the GM who let him go is over.   And although I like Allen's chances better than Winston's, their stories in the pros are similar.   

 

As for Rivers, I haven't understood why he's been on the field for the last three years.   He just didn't have it, stats or not. 

???? 

 

Rivers went 12-4 last year as a starter.

[Straight Hucklebuck]

4 minutes ago, FireChans said:

???? 

 

Rivers went 12-4 last year as a starter.

How do you think he does with the Colts in 2020?

[FireChans]

9 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

How do you think he does with the Colts in 2020?

He looked older and running out of gas to me. Probably not great. Peyton Manning looked bad in 2015, but I don’t think that means he shouldn’t have won MVP in 2013 lol.

Edited April 14, 2020 by FireChans

[Straight Hucklebuck]

10 minutes ago, FireChans said:

He looked older and running out of gas to me. Probably not great. Peyton Manning looked bad in 2015, but I don’t think that means he shouldn’t have won MVP in 2013 lol.

You see it in basketball more frequently, it seems like when veterans have to start changing teams at the end of their careers it’s about done.

 

Maybe he has some Favre magic.

[jrober38]

1 hour ago, Billl said:

No he wasn’t.  He was 21/31 with 1 TD and 1 turnover on the road against the best defense in football.  They lost because they had 21 yards rushing and gave up 6 sacks.

 

For 5.9 yards per attempt.

 

He had just over 100 yards passing through 3 quarters and did absolutely nothing but check the ball down for minimal gains. 

[jrober38]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Thanks.   That's a really good explanation of what you mean.    I understand, and I don't disagree.   

 

But I think there's a little more going on than that.  Your explanation that the rule changes have made it easier for college QBs to transition must be true, because you're right about how long guys had to be understudies in the NFL 40 years ago.  That's interesting.    What I think also is going on is by the time that college guy has been in the NFL for five years, he sure better have learned how to play complex offense, because whatever edge he got from athleticism and scheme in college and for a year or two in the NFL, whatever that edge was is going to be gone.  The defenses will adjust and will take that edge away from you.   Everyone will do it to you, and you'd better be able to do what the traditional franchise QBs do - read, diagnose, make decisions in real time, because if you can't, you're done starting.  

 

If you're correct, teams will figure out that it's more efficient, in terms of building a winner, to get a good kid, run his special stuff for a few years, see if you can surround him with good pieces, and go for the Lombardi.   Then when the kid fails, you go get another one and do it again.   That's not crazy.    I just think coaches and GMs would rather have a team with true franchise QB and spend ten or 15 years building and rebuilding supporting cast around him.   That's what the Patriots and Steelers and Colts have been doing.   

 

I think McBeane clearly are of the view that they want to run a system that always has the next guy in line, waiting to play, at every position except QB.   They aren't going to fall in love with a player at any position and overpay him.  They won't do it; they'll go with the next man up.   At QB, I think they want the franchise QB.   Beane has said at least a few times that he hopes Allen makes him start writing some big checks.    What does that mean?   It means above all else, he wants a franchise QB.   He wants the long-term guy. 

 

f you're right, Beane is behind the times.   I mean that seriously.  It's certainly possible that McBeane are really wired into 2010 thinking about football, they're evangelists for that style, but the league is moving on.   The style still works, once every fifty years or so, but it's not the most effective style.  That would be really cruel to Bills fans - to have been wishing and hoping to get on the modern football train instead of mired where we were for all those years.  Then a couple of guys finally come along and show us how to get on the train, only to discover that although that train used to go to Canton, now it just goes to a landfill in central Pennsylvania.  

 

 

 

 

Agreed. 

 

Running QBs need to figure out how to pick teams apart with their arm. No one's ability to run the ball as a huge weapon lasts. 

 

That's my issue with Josh, some people may not agree, but if you take away Josh's running ability or it declines considerably in 3-4 years once he's taking so many more hits, is his passing ability even remotely good enough to carry a team while he's eating up roughly 20% of the salary cap by himself? Is a mid to high 80s QB Rating and a bottom 10 completion percentage really enough to demand top dollar?

 

I don't think so. But maybe that's just me.  

 

Secondarily, I totally agree with you that everyone wants a franchise QB, I just think they're going to be unbelievably rare in the league going forward. 

 

Looking forward as far as I can, I don't know who the elite QBs in the NFL are going to be once Brady, Big Ben, Rodgers and Brees all are retired within 2-3 years.

 

You'll have Mahomes, Watson below him, and then a grand canyon sized void between the elite guys and the next 20 best QBs in the league who are essentially all inter-changeable in my eyes. 

 

Like if I was Dallas, I would 100% cut bait on Dak and draft someone new. They'll have a great line, elite RB, elite receivers and a very good defense. It's the perfect situation to walk into so I can't understand why on earth they consider paying the 10-15th best QB $35-40 mil and bury themselves under the cap.

Kansas City on the other hand is in a completely different position. They need to lock Mahomes up for all the money because he's shown he can make it work with rookie receivers around him. 

 

I get that everyone wants the franchise QB, I just don't think people should talk themselves into making bad decisions when there's so much money involved.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

Agreed. 

 

Running QBs need to figure out how to pick teams apart with their arm. No one's ability to run the ball as a huge weapon lasts. 

 

That's my issue with Josh, some people may not agree, but if you take away Josh's running ability or it declines considerably in 3-4 years once he's taking so many more hits, is his passing ability even remotely good enough to carry a team while he's eating up roughly 20% of the salary cap by himself? Is a mid to high 80s QB Rating and a bottom 10 completion percentage really enough to demand top dollar?

 

I don't think so. But maybe that's just me.  

 

Secondarily, I totally agree with you that everyone wants a franchise QB, I just think they're going to be unbelievably rare in the league going forward. 

 

Looking forward as far as I can, I don't know who the elite QBs in the NFL are going to be once Brady, Big Ben, Rodgers and Brees all are retired within 2-3 years.

 

You'll have Mahomes, Watson below him, and then a grand canyon sized void between the elite guys and the next 20 best QBs in the league who are essentially all inter-changeable in my eyes. 

 

Like if I was Dallas, I would 100% cut bait on Dak and draft someone new. They'll have a great line, elite RB, elite receivers and a very good defense. It's the perfect situation to walk into so I can't understand why on earth they consider paying the 10-15th best QB $35-40 mil and bury themselves under the cap.

Kansas City on the other hand is in a completely different position. They need to lock Mahomes up for all the money because he's shown he can make it work with rookie receivers around him. 

 

I get that everyone wants the franchise QB, I just don't think people should talk themselves into making bad decisions when there's so much money involved.

 

I'd pay Dak tomorrow. They should have paid him last year before signing Zeke and Cooper to extensions.

[jrober38]

2 hours ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

 

Shaw66 and jrober38, this is a point that I have maintained as well when fans throw out things like Jim Kelly's second year compared to Allen's second year, or Joe Montana completed 61% of passes.

 

John Elway eclipsed 4,000 yards once in 16 years and never had a 30 TD season, and only 6/16 times went over 20 TD's passing. 

 

The statistical bar is higher now that 1992. Back in the day, 3,000 yards and 20 TD's passing, you were a solid NFL QB. Nowadays, that puts you in the Bottom 10 as far as passers.

 

What I don't understand is what a team like the Colts are doing? Why are they paying a washed up Rivers for a year? To do what? He is clearly declining. 

 

In Buffalo, we thumb our noses at Jameis Winston, but really are you capped anymore with him than Allen? I think he's being undervalued. Cam looks shot, he peaked, his best days are over. Winston's decision making is poor, but he makes things happen and his passing stats would almost assuredly be better than Allen's. His defense allowed 28 ppg, the Bills defense allowed 16 ppg. 

 

So jrober38's points make you think, do you pay Allen a mega contract, or do you try and do better? For that reason 2020 is the year for Allen. He doesn't get a free year to plateau.  

 

This is essentially where I'm going with all this.

 

The notion you just need to pony up the cash and make whoever your non-terrible QB is the highest paid player in the league is massively flawed. It's such a scared way to operate. 

 

I think eventually the league will figure out how to play money ball at the QB position because there's so much value you can unlock once you get past the top 15 highest paid players, even though there's a minimal output difference between the guy who is 10th best and 24th best. 

 

I think Baker Mayfield and Kyler Murray suggests there's a shift in QB thinking in some circles. Neither player fits what the NFL would have considered a 1st round QB up until Russell Wilson succeeded so I think there's beginning to be less emphasis on how a QB "looks" which is probably the basis of traditional scouting and more emphasis on how players can actually run an NFL offense. 

9 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I'd pay Dak tomorrow. They should have paid him last year before signing Zeke and Cooper to extensions.

 

I'd have traded Elliot two years ago for sure. 

That was a terrible decision. 

 

But he's there and he's a workhorse. He's still a very good back. 

 

I'm not sold on Dak. Maybe it was Jason Garrett, although I don't think there's any chance Mike McCarthy is going to improve things. 

 

I think Dallas' best opportunity to make a run was 3 years ago. Dak was good, Elliot was incredible, best offensive line in the league, and an excellent defense. 

 

I think they've horribly mismanaged their roster. 

Edited April 14, 2020 by jrober38