ESPN FUTURE POWER RANKINGS NEXT 3 YEARS BILLS #14

[C.Biscuit97]

14 hours ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

So you consider Field Yates and his four years as an intern with Patriots massive front office experience? Super Bowl architect right there and as for Riddick he worked with the Redskins and was one of the architects of the “dream team” in Philly when he was up for the 49ers job in 2015 the Niners fan site couldn’t trash the guy enough as long as someone is articulate even if their wrong says a lot about who you view as credible 

I just think it’s like a parent who doesn’t want to get told their baby is ugly or arguing with someone that their politics are wrong.  Allen is about as risky of a top 10 qb pick as there has ever been taken.  And he is in a great situation on our team but it’s not like he’s really light it up.  We win with defense holding us in games.  Anything less than a top 10 defense, we don’t make the playoffs.  
 

they ranked us very high in a bunch of categories.  But to non Bills fans, Allen is far and away the biggest question mark of long term success.  Like if we have to pay Allen big bucks and have to let a bunch of talent walk (we are in the easy part of the “rebuild” where everyone is cheap), can you see him carrying the team?  At this point, it’s hard to see it.  But he has probably a top 5 receiving core and a bunch of money/ high picks invested in the o line.  If he can’t become a over 60% passer (the definition of average now) and get at least 225 passing/ game, I don’t think he ever will get there.  
 

imo, if you really look at the situation, it is great.  ESPN basically said even if Allen fails to make it as a franchise guy, it’s a great situation for another guy to set up.  It’s also a shame that we don’t have better backup options because it’s over if Matt Barkley needs to play and on this team, that shouldn’t be the case. 

[eball]

36 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

But to non Bills fans, Allen is far and away the biggest question mark of long term success.  Like if we have to pay Allen big bucks and have to let a bunch of talent walk (we are in the easy part of the “rebuild” where everyone is cheap), can you see him carrying the team?  At this point, it’s hard to see it.  But he has probably a top 5 receiving core and a bunch of money/ high picks invested in the o line.  If he can’t become a over 60% passer (the definition of average now) and get at least 225 passing/ game, I don’t think he ever will get there.

 

Here’s where I continue to question your credibility.  You consistently ignore the progress Allen made from Y1 to Y2 and continue to hang your hat on his college statistics as a reason why he won’t succeed.  I’ve asked you numerous times to tell us, specifically, what about Allen’s progress thus far in the NFL, along with his obvious intangibles like leadership, tells you he has plateaued and will not continue to improve?  You can’t answer that simple question because you can’t get yourself past your post-draft bust prediction.  Riskiest top-10 QB draft pick ever?  Come on, that’s laughable.  I don’t know how Allen will perform this year but I can see an upward trajectory when it’s right in front of my face.

[DCOrange]

1 hour ago, eball said:

 

Here’s where I continue to question your credibility.  You consistently ignore the progress Allen made from Y1 to Y2 and continue to hang your hat on his college statistics as a reason why he won’t succeed.  I’ve asked you numerous times to tell us, specifically, what about Allen’s progress thus far in the NFL, along with his obvious intangibles like leadership, tells you he has plateaued and will not continue to improve?  You can’t answer that simple question because you can’t get yourself past your post-draft bust prediction.  Riskiest top-10 QB draft pick ever?  Come on, that’s laughable.  I don’t know how Allen will perform this year but I can see an upward trajectory when it’s right in front of my face.

I mean, of course he can't tell you Allen has for sure plateaued. None of us can see into the future. I won't try to put words in Biscuit's mouth, but my opinion is essentially this. Historical trends have shown that QBs statistically improve pretty significantly from Y1 to Y2. From Y3 onwards, the historical trend is that it's just up and down from there on out, ultimately evening out as being pretty much a flat line. You can find evidence of that from a lot of different sources, but Skarecrow over at Buffalo Rumblings has an article specific to Allen and what kind of progression (or in some cases, regression) we should expect from him in Y3 based on historical trends. https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2020/2/28/21155523/how-big-of-a-leap-should-buffalo-bills-expect-josh-allen-to-make-in-2020

And for reference, here was his piece where he compared 2019 Allen to what he projected for 2019 Allen (TLDR: Allen improved by pretty much exactly as much as you'd expect from a QB in Y2). https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2020/2/7/21046646/how-big-of-a-leap-did-josh-allen-take-in-2019-buffalo-quarterback

 

I think Allen has the physical tools and intangibles to make him as likely as anyone to buck the historical trends and continue making meaningful improvements to his game statistically speaking. But make no mistake, he will be an outlier if he's able to do that, and if he isn't able to do that, it will be difficult to justify giving him a long-term contract.

 

That doesn't mean the sky is falling or anything. With the defense and the offensive supporting cast we have, we can certainly win with him. And being on a cheap salary for two more years, he has plenty of time to prove himself before we have to lock him in long-term. We're in a really good spot as a franchise.

[C.Biscuit97]

1 hour ago, eball said:

 

Here’s where I continue to question your credibility.  You consistently ignore the progress Allen made from Y1 to Y2 and continue to hang your hat on his college statistics as a reason why he won’t succeed.  I’ve asked you numerous times to tell us, specifically, what about Allen’s progress thus far in the NFL, along with his obvious intangibles like leadership, tells you he has plateaued and will not continue to improve?  You can’t answer that simple question because you can’t get yourself past your post-draft bust prediction.  Riskiest top-10 QB draft pick ever?  Come on, that’s laughable.  I don’t know how Allen will perform this year but I can see an upward trajectory when it’s right in front of my face.

Dude, you don’t want to hear any point other than Allen is awesome.  But to answer (which I did before but you again pretend to not see)

 

1) has there ever been a qb in recent history that has played against worst college competition and had a least impressive resume than Allen?  He should have dominant the MWC.  Like player of the year.  He didn’t make 1st or 2nd team his last year there.  Like at Trey Lance at NDSU. As a sophomore, he had 42 tds and 0 ints while completing 66% of his passes.  
 

does that guarantee he will good in the nfl? Absolutely not.  But that’s what a top pick qb should do against lesser competition. 
 

2) he did make some improvements.  However those improvements took him up to 32nd in completion % and 30th in passing yards per game, that’s not great.

 

3) I love Allen’s attitude.  EJ had a great attitude. JP cleaned up Buffalo. Mitch Tribusky is a really nice guy who has an old car.  It doesn’t matter if you can’t play.

 

4) what starting level nfl qb won’t have gone 10-6 with our schedule and our defense?  It was a perfect situation.  In fact, we might have underachieved given how many “Easy” games that had.  
 

I really do like Allen as a guy and I would love to see him become the man.  I’m just being more realistic about the situation.  Guys don’t just magically become more accurate at the nfl level.  His best skill is running and that will lead to injuries.  He needs to win from the pocket.  I hope he does and I would love to be surprised by how good he becomes.  
 

but he is still the major question mark on this team.  

[eball]

@DCOrange thank you for at least putting something factual behind your analysis. But historical trends don’t necessarily predict the future when we are dealing with different individuals in different situations. I analyze Josh Allen based upon what I’ve seen, not what other QBs who are nothing like him have done. 

[C.Biscuit97]

1 minute ago, DCOrange said:

I mean, of course he can't tell you Allen has for sure plateaued. None of us can see into the future. I won't try to put words in Biscuit's mouth, but my opinion is essentially this. Historical trends have shown that QBs statistically improve pretty significantly from Y1 to Y2. From Y3 onwards, the historical trend is that it's just up and down from there on out, ultimately evening out as being pretty much a flat line. You can find evidence of that from a lot of different sources, but Skarecrow over at Buffalo Rumblings has an article specific to Allen and what kind of progression (or in some cases, regression) we should expect from him in Y3 based on historical trends. https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2020/2/28/21155523/how-big-of-a-leap-should-buffalo-bills-expect-josh-allen-to-make-in-2020

And for reference, here was his piece where he compared 2019 Allen to what he projected for 2019 Allen (TLDR: Allen improved by pretty much exactly as much as you'd expect from a QB in Y2). https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2020/2/7/21046646/how-big-of-a-leap-did-josh-allen-take-in-2019-buffalo-quarterback

 

I think Allen has the physical tools and intangibles to make him as likely as anyone to buck the historical trends and continue making meaningful improvements to his game statistically speaking. But make no mistake, he will be an outlier if he's able to do that, and if he isn't able to do that, it will be difficult to justify giving him a long-term contract.

 

That doesn't mean the sky is falling or anything. With the defense and the offensive supporting cast we have, we can certainly win with him. And being on a cheap salary for two more years, he has plenty of time to prove himself before we have to lock him in long-term. We're in a really good spot as a franchise.

Well said.  There’s some weird thing around Bills fans that “experts” don’t personally like Allen.  It comes down to this.  It’s really hard to believe a top 10 pick who didn’t make 1st or 2nd team in the MWC will become a great nfl qb.  If he was on another team, we would think the same way.  
 

if he does, build a statue for McBeane because they are geniuses. 

[eball]

3 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Dude, you don’t want to hear any point other than Allen is awesome.

You’re deaf. There are plenty of my posts stating quite clearly that there are no more excuses for Josh beginning this season. Get off that “you are just a homer” kick because I am just as analytical about the team as anyone. 

[C.Biscuit97]

1 minute ago, eball said:

@DCOrange thank you for at least putting something factual behind your analysis. But historical trends don’t necessarily predict the future when we are dealing with different individuals in different situations. I analyze Josh Allen based upon what I’ve seen, not what other QBs who are nothing like him have done. 

Yeah but if there is was a favorable one, you’d eat that up.  
 

So to sum up mine and ESPN’s point.  The Bills have a top 10 roster and coaching but we are worried about Allen being the answer.  

Just now, eball said:

You’re deaf. There are plenty of my posts stating quite clearly that there are no more excuses for Josh beginning this season. Get off that “you are just a homer” kick because I am just as analytical about the team as anyone. 

Sure you are.  But I say this every time, I truly do hope you’re right because I gain nothing out of being right. 

[DCOrange]

2 minutes ago, eball said:

@DCOrange thank you for at least putting something factual behind your analysis. But historical trends don’t necessarily predict the future when we are dealing with different individuals in different situations. I analyze Josh Allen based upon what I’ve seen, not what other QBs who are nothing like him have done. 

That's totally fair and I certainly hope you're ultimately proven right.

 

Also, just FWIW so I don't get lumped in as someone that has hated Allen from the get-go, I had a top 15 draft grade on him (and also said I'd be comfortable taking a chance on him in the top 10) and predicted that Buffalo would trade up into the top 10 to take him.

https://draftqbs.wordpress.com/2018-draft/josh-allen/

https://draftqbs.wordpress.com/2018-draft/2018-mock-draft/

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Yeah but if there is was a favorable one, you’d eat that up.  
 

So to sum up mine and ESPN’s point.  The Bills have a top 10 roster and coaching but we are worried about Allen being the answer.  

And the Colts, with a bigger question at QB and a lesser roster, are ranked higher.  I mean, really, who in his right mind would bet on the Colts'QB roommover the Bill's?  And the same can be said about the Steelers. Both of those teams would trade QB rooms with the Bill's in a heartbeat. 

[DCOrange]

8 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

And the Colts, with a bigger question at QB and a lesser roster, are ranked higher.  I mean, really, who in his right mind would bet on the Colts'QB roommover the Bill's?  And the same can be said about the Steelers. Both of those teams would trade QB rooms with the Bill's in a heartbeat. 

The Colts QB situation wasn't rated any higher than Buffalo's, but honestly, I wouldn't at all be surprised if teams would prefer to have a vet that they think they can count on and a couple potentially promising young QBs than just having Allen and nothing behind him. Indy probably has more flexibility to bring in a new QB as well since they haven't really hitched their wagon to a QB like Buffalo mentally has. At any rate, I think that one could go either way, which seems to be what ESPN believes as well.

 

And I think you're just flat out wrong about Pittsburgh. I think most teams would likely take Roethlisberger and future draft picks over hitching their wagon to Allen. Ben is still viewed as arguably a top 10 QB in the league or at minimum top 15.

 

The Colts situation is definitely more debatable, which is why their QB situation tied Buffalo's.

Edited July 22, 2020 by DCOrange

[C.Biscuit97]

2 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

That's totally fair and I certainly hope you're ultimately proven right.

 

Also, just FWIW so I don't get lumped in as someone that has hated Allen from the get-go, I had a top 15 draft grade on him (and also said I'd be comfortable taking a chance on him in the top 10) and predicted that Buffalo would trade up into the top 10 to take him.

https://draftqbs.wordpress.com/2018-draft/josh-allen/

https://draftqbs.wordpress.com/2018-draft/2018-mock-draft/

And just be consistent.  I wanted another team to draft Allen because I wasn’t sold on him and hate prospects like him in the 1st round (I love guys like that in later rounds, it’s why I didn’t like the Fromm pick). 
 

ive grown to really like him as a guy but I struggle to just forget all the things I worried about him because he’s a Bill. It sucks. 

[C.Biscuit97]

13 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

And the Colts, with a bigger question at QB and a lesser roster, are ranked higher.  I mean, really, who in his right mind would bet on the Colts'QB roommover the Bill's?  And the same can be said about the Steelers. Both of those teams would trade QB rooms with the Bill's in a heartbeat. 

I mean Rivers might be washed up but he did just have 4,600 yards passing and pretty much is good for 4,000 every year.

 

would I take Rivers over Allen long term? No.  But for a year? I think Rivers would be an upgrade and Brisett is a huge upgrade over Barkley.  

10 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

The Colts QB situation wasn't rated any higher than Buffalo's, but honestly, I wouldn't at all be surprised if teams would prefer to have a vet that they think they can count on and a couple potentially promising young QBs than just having Allen and nothing behind him. Indy probably has more flexibility to bring in a new QB as well since they haven't really hitched their wagon to a QB like Buffalo mentally has. At any rate, I think that one could go either way, which seems to be what ESPN believes as well.

 

And I think you're just flat out wrong about Pittsburgh. I think most teams would likely take Roethlisberger and future draft picks over hitching their wagon to Allen. Ben is still viewed as arguably a top 10 QB in the league or at minimum top 15.

 

The Colts situation is definitely more debatable, which is why their QB situation tied Buffalo's.

Basically the only reason Pittsburgh wasn’t in the playoffs was because of maybe the worst qb play in the nfl last year.  If Big Ben is average, they are a very dangerous team and he passed for 5,000 yards the previous year.

[JaCrispy]

On 7/20/2020 at 12:10 PM, Herc11 said:

This is completely asinine. 

 

- Allen leads team to playoffs, yet is scored below avg.

 

- Front office has killed it in the draft last couple years and gets scored avg

 

All this shows is that the media continues to not do real research, which should consist of actually watching.

To this point, Allen has been been below average...not sure what games you’re watching, or stats you’re looking at- but it’s pretty obvious...

[Doc]

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Watson did not make Hopkins but that wasn't quite what he said. He said he transformed Houston's offense.

 

In the two full seasons before Watson Houston averaged 19.3 points per game and 331.2 yards per game. 

 

In the two full seasons Watson has played for them it is 24.3 points per game and 362.3 yards per game. 

 

That is over 30 yards and 5 points per game Deshaun Watson has been worth to Houston. And that is with me purposely excluding 2017 where Watson started 6 games as a rookie but then blew his knee out. If you look at that season the numbers are even more staggering: 

 

The 2017 Houston Texans without Deshaun Watson were 2-8, averaging just 13 points per game and 275.1 yards per game. The 2017 Houston Texans with Deshaun Watson were 3-3, averaging 34.6 points and 394.8 yards. 

 

Yea, Deshaun Watson transformed Houston's offense, even though DeAndre Hopkins was already a stud before he got there. 

 

I think the point is more who has Allen had to rely on?  Now he's got Diggs.

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I mean Rivers might be washed up but he did just have 4,600 yards passing and pretty much is good for 4,000 every year.

 

would I take Rivers over Allen long term? No.  But for a year? I think Rivers would be an upgrade and Brisett is a huge upgrade over Barkley.  

For a year, sure, but if you're the GM for the Colts or Steelers, you'd trade in a heartbeat.   Allen is the ONLY QB on those three rosters who has the potential to be a franchise QB over the next 5-10 years.   It's a total no-brainer.

 

You tend to upset me and others because you don't share our optimism about where Allen is going, and I have to keep reminding myself of that.  I think you see the same QB I see, which is a guy who wasn't nearly good enough last season and has to be substantially better.  And I don't mean he needs better stats, because adding Diggs and Moss is going to give Allen better stats even if he doesn't improve.   He has to be a better NFL quarterback than he's been.

 

But I wanted to talk about a couple of others things that have been said here and in other threads that I think need to be de-bunked.  I don't think you, Biscuit, said them all, so what follows is a general response.  If the shoe fits, etc. 

 

First, this notion that Allen may have been one of the longest shot first round QBs in history is baloney.  Allen has extraordinary talent, brains, work ethic, etc.  That's why he was talked about as a number 1 over all pick, and that's why he was essentially a lock to go in the top 10.  He was not more of a long shot than any other QB drafted in the top 10 but not #1 overall.  

 

Second, this idea that because he had crappy stats and a lousy record in a crummy conference is meaningless.  Absolutely meaningless.  If it meant anything, Allen never would have been able to perform as an average NFL starter and be a league leader in fourth quarter comebacks.  It is completely clear that Allen's college performance is not a measure of his ability or his potential.  And it was completely clear to NFL GMs, which is exactly why Allen WAS a top 10 pick.  Allen already has outperformed the typical crappy college record QB by so much that it's clear that that history counts for nothing.  

 

The bottom line is that Allen's past is totally irrelevant to whether he will succeed in the NFL.  The fact that his college career wasn't Heisman-level is irrelevant.  Even the fact that he has steadily improved within each of his first two seasons in the NFL is irrelevant.  His steady improvement is part of what makes me optimistic, but I get that he can plateau at any time.  

 

Allen needs to be better, plain and simple.  I'm optimistic, you're less so.  I'm fine with that.  

[eball]

8 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

For a year, sure, but if you're the GM for the Colts or Steelers, you'd trade in a heartbeat.   Allen is the ONLY QB on those three rosters who has the potential to be a franchise QB over the next 5-10 years.   It's a total no-brainer.

 

You tend to upset me and others because you don't share our optimism about where Allen is going, and I have to keep reminding myself of that.  I think you see the same QB I see, which is a guy who wasn't nearly good enough last season and has to be substantially better.  And I don't mean he needs better stats, because adding Diggs and Moss is going to give Allen better stats even if he doesn't improve.   He has to be a better NFL quarterback than he's been.

 

But I wanted to talk about a couple of others things that have been said here and in other threads that I think need to be de-bunked.  I don't think you, Biscuit, said them all, so what follows is a general response.  If the shoe fits, etc. 

 

First, this notion that Allen may have been one of the longest shot first round QBs in history is baloney.  Allen has extraordinary talent, brains, work ethic, etc.  That's why he was talked about as a number 1 over all pick, and that's why he was essentially a lock to go in the top 10.  He was not more of a long shot than any other QB drafted in the top 10 but not #1 overall.  

 

Second, this idea that because he had crappy stats and a lousy record in a crummy conference is meaningless.  Absolutely meaningless.  If it meant anything, Allen never would have been able to perform as an average NFL starter and be a league leader in fourth quarter comebacks.  It is completely clear that Allen's college performance is not a measure of his ability or his potential.  And it was completely clear to NFL GMs, which is exactly why Allen WAS a top 10 pick.  Allen already has outperformed the typical crappy college record QB by so much that it's clear that that history counts for nothing.  

 

The bottom line is that Allen's past is totally irrelevant to whether he will succeed in the NFL.  The fact that his college career wasn't Heisman-level is irrelevant.  Even the fact that he has steadily improved within each of his first two seasons in the NFL is irrelevant.  His steady improvement is part of what makes me optimistic, but I get that he can plateau at any time.  

 

Allen needs to be better, plain and simple.  I'm optimistic, you're less so.  I'm fine with that.  

No, Shaw, you’re just a homer who doesn’t want to hear anything except Allen is awesome. 

[GunnerBill]

11 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I think the point is more who has Allen had to rely on?  Now he's got Diggs.

 

I don't disagree with that point. That was not the bit I took issue with. 

[C.Biscuit97]

9 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

For a year, sure, but if you're the GM for the Colts or Steelers, you'd trade in a heartbeat.   Allen is the ONLY QB on those three rosters who has the potential to be a franchise QB over the next 5-10 years.   It's a total no-brainer.

 

You tend to upset me and others because you don't share our optimism about where Allen is going, and I have to keep reminding myself of that.  I think you see the same QB I see, which is a guy who wasn't nearly good enough last season and has to be substantially better.  And I don't mean he needs better stats, because adding Diggs and Moss is going to give Allen better stats even if he doesn't improve.   He has to be a better NFL quarterback than he's been.

 

But I wanted to talk about a couple of others things that have been said here and in other threads that I think need to be de-bunked.  I don't think you, Biscuit, said them all, so what follows is a general response.  If the shoe fits, etc. 

 

First, this notion that Allen may have been one of the longest shot first round QBs in history is baloney.  Allen has extraordinary talent, brains, work ethic, etc.  That's why he was talked about as a number 1 over all pick, and that's why he was essentially a lock to go in the top 10.  He was not more of a long shot than any other QB drafted in the top 10 but not #1 overall.  

 

Second, this idea that because he had crappy stats and a lousy record in a crummy conference is meaningless.  Absolutely meaningless.  If it meant anything, Allen never would have been able to perform as an average NFL starter and be a league leader in fourth quarter comebacks.  It is completely clear that Allen's college performance is not a measure of his ability or his potential.  And it was completely clear to NFL GMs, which is exactly why Allen WAS a top 10 pick.  Allen already has outperformed the typical crappy college record QB by so much that it's clear that that history counts for nothing.  

 

The bottom line is that Allen's past is totally irrelevant to whether he will succeed in the NFL.  The fact that his college career wasn't Heisman-level is irrelevant.  Even the fact that he has steadily improved within each of his first two seasons in the NFL is irrelevant.  His steady improvement is part of what makes me optimistic, but I get that he can plateau at any time.  

 

Allen needs to be better, plain and simple.  I'm optimistic, you're less so.  I'm fine with that.  

This is a fair post and I do appreciate the way you present your points.  But I think you do let your biases get in the way.

 

1 - I think you are a guy who’s put down Lamar Jackson’s success (correct me if I’m wrong).  You talk about Allen improving but why can’t a 23 year old MVP?  
 

2 - so it’s not concerning that a qb who has never went over 60% passing on any level and has been very inconsistent has through 2 years in the nfl, been under 60% and inconsistent?  At what point do you eventually say that maybe Allen just is not getting unlucky and there are some flaws there?  
 

and I get why, but if he wasn’t a Bill and say a Jet, what would the opinion of him be?

[GunnerBill]

56 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I mean Rivers might be washed up but he did just have 4,600 yards passing and pretty much is good for 4,000 every year.

 

would I take Rivers over Allen long term? No.  But for a year? I think Rivers would be an upgrade and Brisett is a huge upgrade over Barkley.  

Basically the only reason Pittsburgh wasn’t in the playoffs was because of maybe the worst qb play in the nfl last year.  If Big Ben is average, they are a very dangerous team and he passed for 5,000 yards the previous year.

 

I wouldn't take Rivers. Not even for a year. I have been a big Philip Rivers fan and have defended him against the many doubters for his entire career but watching him last year I thought he was done. He was throwing late Peyton Manning ducks. Agree Brissett is an upgrade over Barkley. I have a leaking teapot that is an upgrade over Matt Barkley.

 

I am with you and @DCOrange on Big Ben though. I'd take Ben for a year. He might be done too, but we didn't see any evidence of that the last time he was on the field and healthy. For the next three years? Yes I might lean Allen over Ben but I can understand why others wouldn't, especially looking in from the outside. You are asking someone to take what is still "potential" over a slam dunk future Hall of Fame Quarterback.

[SCBills]

9 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Watson did not make Hopkins but that wasn't quite what he said. He said he transformed Houston's offense.

 

In the two full seasons before Watson Houston averaged 19.3 points per game and 331.2 yards per game. 

 

In the two full seasons Watson has played for them it is 24.3 points per game and 362.3 yards per game. 

 

That is over 30 yards and 5 points per game Deshaun Watson has been worth to Houston. And that is with me purposely excluding 2017 where Watson started 6 games as a rookie but then blew his knee out. If you look at that season the numbers are even more staggering: 

 

The 2017 Houston Texans without Deshaun Watson were 2-8, averaging just 13 points per game and 275.1 yards per game. The 2017 Houston Texans with Deshaun Watson were 3-3, averaging 34.6 points and 394.8 yards. 

 

Yea, Deshaun Watson transformed Houston's offense, even though DeAndre Hopkins was already a stud before he got there. 

 

Watson is a stud, i have no problem admitting that.. I'm simply stating he didn't "make" Hopkins who he is.. He was lucky enough to play with him.  

 

Josh Allen has to prove a lot this year to be mentioned in the young phenom (Mahomes, Watson, Jackson) group - Agreed, but i'm simply pointing out that, in Year 3, he finally has an offense comparable to what they've all had.  

 

I don't think Jimmy G belongs in this discussion because, like Allen, analysts/fans tend to view him as a question mark on a loaded team.  I don't think too many would take our offense (last year) surrounding Allen over San Fran's surrounding Jimmy G though... it's pretty clear he had a much better supporting cast.   This coming year, that all changes... no more excuses.  

 

I've seen Allen display leadership, the ability to fix issues from season to season/game to game and, of course, the wow-factor/potential.   If he we get the same QB from last year, but with a bit better decision making ie. an extra check down or two per game instead of forcing it, along with a guy who fixed his deep ball, we have an upper half of the league QB (IMO), when you also factor in his mobility and RZ ability.   That extra checkdown or two per game and connecting on at least one deep ball per adds another 50-60 yards to his YPG, likely another 6-7 PPG and bumps his completion percentage to 60%+.

 

I'm excited to see a guy who has shown the willingness to work, lead and grow his undeniable talent.  I'm also excited that in Year 3, there should be no more excuses.  It's time for Allen to make that jump.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2020 by SCBills

[GunnerBill]

41 minutes ago, SCBills said:

 

Watson is a stud, i have no problem admitting that.. I'm simply stating he didn't "make" Hopkins who he is.. He was lucky enough to play with him.  

 

Nobody said he did. The statement you responded to about Watson was that he transformed the Houston offense - which he did. Even with the supreme talent that Hopkins is Houston were pre-Watson what the Bills have been. A hope to get to 20 points and play defense team. 

[Shaw66]

4 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

This is a fair post and I do appreciate the way you present your points.  But I think you do let your biases get in the way.

 

1 - I think you are a guy who’s put down Lamar Jackson’s success (correct me if I’m wrong).  You talk about Allen improving but why can’t a 23 year old MVP?  
 

2 - so it’s not concerning that a qb who has never went over 60% passing on any level and has been very inconsistent has through 2 years in the nfl, been under 60% and inconsistent?  At what point do you eventually say that maybe Allen just is not getting unlucky and there are some flaws there?  
 

and I get why, but if he wasn’t a Bill and say a Jet, what would the opinion of him be?

This post is why people don't like talking with you about this stuff.  You're a smart guy, you know a lot about football, but your anti-Allen agenda gets in that way of having an intelligent discussion with you. 

 

This thread is about the Bills being #14 on a three-year list.  Several people, including me, thing the ranking is too low. NOBODY, including me, thinks the Bills should be rated above the Ravens.  No one said anything meaningful about the Ravens at all. 

 

The thread naturally turned into a discussion about Allen, because he is the single player who most can affect what the next three years looks like.  Everyone agrees about that.  NOBODY is arguing that Allen is better or will be better than Jackson.  How good Jackson is has NEVER been a meaningful part of any discussion in this thread.  You are correct that I think Allen will prove to be the better QB by the end of their careers, and I've expressed why, but that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER  to do with the discussion going on in this thread.  Still, you think it's somehow meaningful to take an interesting discussion about Allen's development and turn it into an Allen vs. Jackson discussion.  The reason you do this is because, on the basis of their production so far in their careers, you can win that discussion and thereby establish that Allen isn't good.  

 

Whatever happens in Jackson's career is TOTALLY irrelevant to the discussion we were having, and yet you bring it up. 

 

And then you begin to make your argument, which essentially is that Allen hasn't done what you want yet, so therefore he won't do it in the future.  We can have that discussion sometime, too, and I'm sure we already have, but that discussion ALSO has ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to do with what we talking about.  We were talking about which teams above the Bills have better or worse three-year prospects in their QB rooms.  You can make the case that you don't think Allen will get any better, and I can make the case, that you cannot refute, that Rivers is washed up and Brissett has already, and to a much greater extent than Allen, demonstrated the limits of his abilities.  

 

In plainest terms, the simple truth probably is that there are at least 20 GMs in the league who disagree with your assessment that Allen isn't likely to get better.  But I don't want to argue with you about any of that. 

[Stank_Nasty]

5 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

 

 

Second, this idea that because he had crappy stats and a lousy record in a crummy conference is meaningless.  Absolutely meaningless.  If it meant anything, Allen never would have been able to perform as an average NFL starter and be a league leader in fourth quarter comebacks.  It is completely clear that Allen's college performance is not a measure of his ability or his potential.  And it was completely clear to NFL GMs, which is exactly why Allen WAS a top 10 pick.  Allen already has outperformed the typical crappy college record QB by so much that it's clear that that history counts for nothing.  

 

 

my goodness, this is just a great response to biscuits broken record argument about allens college production. Very nicely done.

[Shaw66]

8 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

my goodness, this is just a great response to biscuits broken record argument about allens college production. Very nicely done.

Stank, I had to go out after I wrote that, and I was thinking about it some more.   The fact that his college record is irrelevant is best demonstrated this way:

 

I don't know how many  non-power five conferences there are.  Say there are 8.  Ten teams each, that's 80 starting QBs.  Of those, say a third are seniors.  That's 25 draft eligible QBs from crappy conferences.  How many of them have lousy stats or lousy records?  Maybe 2/3 of them.  So that's 16 guys with lousy stats from lousy conferences available in the draft every year.  How many of those get drafted?  None.  None get drafted.  

 

Then Allen comes along, lousy conference, lousy stats, and he's a consensus top-10 pick.  He SLIPPED from being the #1 pick.  That tells you that Allen is an outlier, that his conference record is irrelevant.  

 

You know how else I know the lousy conference-lousy stats argument is useless?  Because Jake Fromm had great stats and a great record in a great conference and he went in the fifth round.  He has better career stats than Joe Burrow, who couldn't start in the Big 10.  

 

Allen is different.  That's all.  The sample size for great QBs is too small to reach any meaningful conclusions about a guy's future by superficial observations about his college career. 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

Stank, I had to go out after I wrote that, and I was thinking about it some more.   The fact that his college record is irrelevant is best demonstrated this way:

 

I don't know how many  non-power five conferences there are.  Say there are 8.  Ten teams each, that's 80 starting QBs.  Of those, say a third are seniors.  That's 25 draft eligible QBs from crappy conferences.  How many of them have lousy stats or lousy records?  Maybe 2/3 of them.  So that's 16 guys with lousy stats from lousy conferences available in the draft every year.  How many of those get drafted?  None.  None get drafted.  

 

Then Allen comes along, lousy conference, lousy stats, and he's a consensus top-10 pick.  He SLIPPED from being the #1 pick.  That tells you that Allen is an outlier, that his conference record is irrelevant.  

 

You know how else I know the lousy conference-lousy stats argument is useless?  Because Jake Fromm had great stats and a great record in a great conference and he went in the fifth round.  He has better career stats than Joe Burrow, who couldn't start in the Big 10.  

 

Allen is different.  That's all.  The sample size for great QBs is too small to reach any meaningful conclusions about a guy's future by superficial observations about his college career. 

 

Burrow had the greatest ever season by a college QB in the SEC. That rather outweighs what he did as a Sophomore at Ohio State.  

[Shaw66]

18 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Burrow had the greatest ever season by a college QB in the SEC. That rather outweighs what he did as a Sophomore at Ohio State.  

I don't disagree for a minute, and I'm not suggesting they were misdrafted at all.  I don't watch a lot of college football, but when I watched Burrow I saw football maturity and intelligence that I don't think I've even seen in a college QB.  He's spectacular.   

 

The discussion was about college stats and conference quality.  If you compare their college careers and the conferences in which they played, statistically Fromm had a better career.   The fact that Burrow is so much better is the proof that college career and conference strength is not the measure of what makes a good NFL QB. 

 

By the way, the reaction I had every time I saw Burrow play this year was simply wonder what's wrong with the Ohio State coaches.  If I have a talent like Burrow but he doesn't quite fit my offense, I'm changing my offense.  

[Stank_Nasty]

29 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Stank, I had to go out after I wrote that, and I was thinking about it some more.   The fact that his college record is irrelevant is best demonstrated this way:

 

I don't know how many  non-power five conferences there are.  Say there are 8.  Ten teams each, that's 80 starting QBs.  Of those, say a third are seniors.  That's 25 draft eligible QBs from crappy conferences.  How many of them have lousy stats or lousy records?  Maybe 2/3 of them.  So that's 16 guys with lousy stats from lousy conferences available in the draft every year.  How many of those get drafted?  None.  None get drafted.  

 

Then Allen comes along, lousy conference, lousy stats, and he's a consensus top-10 pick.  He SLIPPED from being the #1 pick.  That tells you that Allen is an outlier, that his conference record is irrelevant.  

 

You know how else I know the lousy conference-lousy stats argument is useless?  Because Jake Fromm had great stats and a great record in a great conference and he went in the fifth round.  He has better career stats than Joe Burrow, who couldn't start in the Big 10.  

 

Allen is different.  That's all.  The sample size for great QBs is too small to reach any meaningful conclusions about a guy's future by superficial observations about his college career. 

Agreed. Solid points all around... But i just love the original thought that his career up to this point has already kind of put to rest the whole "crappy college production" argument. If it mattered at all, he would have simply been atrocious as a pro. And thats just not the case.

[C.Biscuit97]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

This post is why people don't like talking with you about this stuff.  You're a smart guy, you know a lot about football, but your anti-Allen agenda gets in that way of having an intelligent discussion with you. 

 

This thread is about the Bills being #14 on a three-year list.  Several people, including me, thing the ranking is too low. NOBODY, including me, thinks the Bills should be rated above the Ravens.  No one said anything meaningful about the Ravens at all. 

 

The thread naturally turned into a discussion about Allen, because he is the single player who most can affect what the next three years looks like.  Everyone agrees about that.  NOBODY is arguing that Allen is better or will be better than Jackson.  How good Jackson is has NEVER been a meaningful part of any discussion in this thread.  You are correct that I think Allen will prove to be the better QB by the end of their careers, and I've expressed why, but that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER  to do with the discussion going on in this thread.  Still, you think it's somehow meaningful to take an interesting discussion about Allen's development and turn it into an Allen vs. Jackson discussion.  The reason you do this is because, on the basis of their production so far in their careers, you can win that discussion and thereby establish that Allen isn't good.  

 

Whatever happens in Jackson's career is TOTALLY irrelevant to the discussion we were having, and yet you bring it up. 

 

And then you begin to make your argument, which essentially is that Allen hasn't done what you want yet, so therefore he won't do it in the future.  We can have that discussion sometime, too, and I'm sure we already have, but that discussion ALSO has ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to do with what we talking about.  We were talking about which teams above the Bills have better or worse three-year prospects in their QB rooms.  You can make the case that you don't think Allen will get any better, and I can make the case, that you cannot refute, that Rivers is washed up and Brissett has already, and to a much greater extent than Allen, demonstrated the limits of his abilities.  

 

In plainest terms, the simple truth probably is that there are at least 20 GMs in the league who disagree with your assessment that Allen isn't likely to get better.  But I don't want to argue with you about any of that. 

See this is the problem with trying to discuss Allen here.  I’d argue I’m one if the most rational people on the board when talking about him.  I’m using facts and past performance while the Allen (trying not to use soccer moms ?) are using projections that Allen has never hit.  I’ve comparison of Allen to Elway, Big Ben, and a better Cam Newton (so laughable how underrated Newton is here).  
 

it would be completely phony for me to start propping up a guy who I hated as a prospect Just because the Bills picked him.  I think he is a flawed prospect that fans are hoping (based on no real numbers) to be a better player in the NFL than he has ever been on any level of football.  Again if he was on another team, people would be more willing to admit that he is a flawed prospect.  
 

I want Allen to be good but I wanted all Bills players to be good (except RI. He’s scum).  But hoping and be realistic about him is entirely different.  I don’t think Allen is terrible and certainly deserves this year.  And I hope he proves me wrong.  But you haven’t show me one shred of real evidence that shows he is going to a good enough passer to consistently carry a franchise. 
 

And of course this thread became all about Allen.  Some can’t handle any criticism of Allen without making personal.  I wish ex girlfriends defended me like some of you do to Allen.  And I was good boyfriend more than 60% of the time.  Appreciate the conversation and even though I disagree, have a good night boss. 

1 hour ago, Stank_Nasty said:

Agreed. Solid points all around... But i just love the original thought that his career up to this point has already kind of put to rest the whole "crappy college production" argument. If it mattered at all, he would have simply been atrocious as a pro. And thats just not the case.

So there is zero worry that a guy who was picked at the highest drafted qb in franchise history didn’t dominate the MWC?  
 

allen college completion % 56.2

Allen nfl completion % 56.3

 

but that doesn’t mean anything I guess. 

[SoCal Deek]

Looking at the overall league rankings it’s going to suck to be in New York City in the near future. Both the Giants and Jets are bringing up the bottom! 

[Stank_Nasty]

43 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

. 

So there is zero worry that a guy who was picked at the highest drafted qb in franchise history didn’t dominate the MWC?  
 

allen college completion % 56.2

Allen nfl completion % 56.3

 

but that doesn’t mean anything I guess. 

It doesn’t mean anything when he’s already played better as a pro in a harder league than he ever did in the mountain west. At that point it’s silly to even bring up. 
 

if he wasn’t constantly improving and totally outplaying his college days it might hold some water. But that’s not the case in the least. Onward and upward 

 

quick question. When his improvement continues and Allen’s comp % naturally migrates up over 60 this year are you still gonna use his cumulative career % to keep pushing the narrative or finally let it go and admit he’s on the right trajectory?..... that basically 98% of everyone else already sees. 

Edited July 22, 2020 by Stank_Nasty

[Lieutenant Aldo Raine]

5 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Cam Newton (so laughable how underrated Newton is here).  

Newton is a career 59% passer, and if you look at his yearly stats, on average he is very comparable to where Allen was this year.  But you defend him in the same “soccer mom” fashion you criticize those who argue in support of Allen.  

Edited July 23, 2020 by Lieutenant Aldo Raine

[GunnerBill]

10 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't disagree for a minute, and I'm not suggesting they were misdrafted at all.  I don't watch a lot of college football, but when I watched Burrow I saw football maturity and intelligence that I don't think I've even seen in a college QB.  He's spectacular.   

 

The discussion was about college stats and conference quality.  If you compare their college careers and the conferences in which they played, statistically Fromm had a better career.   The fact that Burrow is so much better is the proof that college career and conference strength is not the measure of what makes a good NFL QB. 

 

By the way, the reaction I had every time I saw Burrow play this year was simply wonder what's wrong with the Ohio State coaches.  If I have a talent like Burrow but he doesn't quite fit my offense, I'm changing my offense.  

 

I dispute that Fromm had the better stats. He was more consistently okay. But only one of them have the stats of a fantastic season. I wouldn't look at Fromm and Burrow's college careers and say statistically Fromm's was better. 

[Virgil]

Hey everyone.  I've been in a bit of a sports hibernation and allowed myself to be lulled into a quarantine slump. 

 

Let me just say, that these future rankings articles are purely opinion, have no relevance to how things will turn out, and are simply something to read in the offseason.  With that being said.....Are you ***** kidding me?!

 

I don't care where the Bills are ranked, but I DO care about the logic behind why they are ranked where they are. 

 

For starters, the Bills have a top 3 defense and there's literally no reason to believe that's going to change.  The Bills have a top 10 WR trio (I'd argue top 3).  They have a lot of talent at RB and I'd say at least a good Offensive Line.  With that being said, the only real question mark to me is if Josh makes the year 3 leap as expected.  With that being said, let's look at the teams ahead of us, and help me understand why they are projecting higher than us

 

1 - Ravens - I'm good here.  Until Lamar gets slowed down, they deserve this.  Personally, I think his decline starts this upcoming season, but that's opinion

2 - Chiefs - Also good here for the next few years, but I think that cap is going to eventually eat them alive and the receivers will want to get paid too

3 - 49ers - Good here.  Solid,  young defense, but 2 years out will be interesting for them with the cap too

4 - Saints - WTF?  You're telling me the Saints will be the same team without Drew Brees?  I'm sorry, but you take Brees off this team, how are the better than the Bills?

5 - Cowboys - Again, WTF?  Are we just assuming this new head coach is going to fix the underperformance issues with this team?  This team was barely a playoff team last year and we stomped them on Thanksgiving.  So again, why are they better than the Bills?

6 - Eagles - I'm sorry, but aren't they going to be in cap hell next year?  They thumped us last season, but 6th overall?  But did I miss why they going to be any better as a team going forward?

7 - Steelers - This one is tough one as you can't evaluate them without Big Ben.  We honestly don't know what that team will look like, besides having a great defense.  Connor is still a mystery and we don't know how that receiving core will be.  Big Ben has indicated he won't be there all 3 years.  With all of that, I'm not sure how they are clear cut ahead of the Bills or 7 overall

8 -Seahawks - I think they should be 4th personally

9 - Tampa - Sorry, but I think Brady is on the decline and there will be bumps with his arm trying to stretch the field.  Brady might not make it both years, and this is a 3 year Power Rank.  I understand the hype, and Brady has owned us, so I'm okay with them being ahead of the Bills

10 - Colts - I'm sorry, but what?  Rivers is good, but he couldn't get the Chargers here, so why is he doing it with the Colts?  Nothing about this teams talent, besides maybe Rivers, looks better than the Bills. 

11 - Titans - They earned this with their Playoff run, but the Bills have been able to shut down Henry and Tannehill.  This is a push to me

12 - Vikings - Again, why?  Cook did finally play a full healthy season.  They lost Diggs.  Just nothing here that is a clear cut improvement over the Bills to me.

13 - Patriots - This one all comes down to the power run game they adapt to and how Cam adapts.  If Cam is healthy, can carry a few times to keep defenses honest and bring up defenders for the passing game....then okay.  And knowing the Hoodie and his luck, it'll probably happen

14 - Bills

 

With that, I have mine as:

1 - Chiefs (The won the superbowl and are returning most of the same team)

2 - Ravens

3 - 49ers

4 - Seahawks

5 - Tampa Bay

6 - Bills

6 - Titans

6 - Patriots

9 - Steelers

10 - Saints

11 - Vikings

12 - Cowboys

13 - Colts

14 - Eagles

Edited July 23, 2020 by Virgil

[Gugny]

4 minutes ago, Virgil said:

Hey everyone. 

 

Hey, Virg.

[teef]

10 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Hey, Virg.

hey, gug.

[Gugny]

17 minutes ago, teef said:

hey, gug.

 

Sup, teef?

[teef]

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

Sup, teef?

virg is back.

[Gugny]

2 minutes ago, teef said:

virg is back.

 

I'm pretty excited about it.

[Billl]

56 minutes ago, Virgil said:

With that, I have mine as:

1 - Chiefs (The won the superbowl and are returning most of the same team)

2 - Ravens

3 - 49ers

4 - Seahawks

5 - Tampa Bay

6 - Bills

6 - Titans

6 - Patriots

9 - Steelers

10 - Saints

11 - Vikings

12 - Saints

13 - Colts

14 - Eagles

I agree with the Saints at 10, but I disagree with the Saints at 12.