Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Protocal69

ESPN FUTURE POWER RANKINGS NEXT 3 YEARS BILLS #14

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
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 by SCBills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Stank_Nasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Lieutenant Aldo Raine
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by Virgil
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Virgil said:

Hey everyone. 

 

Hey, Virg.

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Hey, Virg.

hey, gug.

Share this post


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

hey, gug.

 

Sup, teef?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

Sup, teef?

virg is back.

Share this post


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

virg is back.

 

I'm pretty excited about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...