No one carries an offense like Josh Allen (except R. Wilson)

[Chaos]

In week 1, 91 % of the Bills offense ran through Josh Allen

 

In comparison 84% ran through Lamar Jackson, 79% through Kyler Murray. Russell Wilson was 91.6%

 

Allen  Passing plus rushing = 369 Bills total = 404 369/404 = 91.3%
Jackson 320/377 = 84.8%
Murray 321/404 = 79.4%
Wilson 351/383 = 91.6%


 

[Kelsayrundefense]

Crazy stat.

[thebandit27]

This is how it has been since his rookie season. He’s not a big part of the offense; he is the offense.

[C.Biscuit97]

Since this tends to favor qbs who run a lot, it would be interesting if see a historical study of how qbs who have such a % age.  I’m sure Cam, Vick, etc. were very high with this %.

[Virgil]

Too bad he's trash.  We need more out of a QB.  If he doesn't throw for 400 yards and score 50 points this week, cut him

[IgotBILLStopay]

Any team with limited nonQB rushing will show that. Speaks to Bills’ rushing struggles with Singletary and Moss more than than anything else

 

for example in MNF, Daniel Jones had more than 97% (301 / 308). Speaks more to Barkley’s rushing struggles than saying Jones is the offense

Edited September 15, 2020 by IgotBILLStopay

[Rochesterian Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, Virgil said:

Too bad he's trash.  We need more out of a QB.  If he doesn't throw for 400 yards and score 50 points this week, cut him

They better throw him in on ton D too and play like the other Josh Allen

[Billl]

28 minutes ago, Chaos said:

In week 1, 91 % of the Bills offense ran through Josh Allen

 

In comparison 84% ran through Lamar Jackson, 79% through Kyler Murray. Russell Wilson was 91.6%

 

Allen  Passing plus rushing = 369 Bills total = 404 369/404 = 91.3%
Jackson 320/377 = 84.8%
Murray 321/404 = 79.4%
Wilson 351/383 = 91.6%


 

Daniel Jones had 301 yards.  The Giants had 291.  He literally had 103.4% of their total offense.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Billl

[thebandit27]

4 minutes ago, Billl said:

Daniel Jones had 301 yards.  The Giants had 291.  He literally had 103.4% of their total offense.

Unless you’re going to deduct the sack yards from his passing (which is what’s done with net total yards), you’re comparing apples to oranges.

 

Jones had 301 of their 308 offensive yards. Not good for the G-MEN.

[Brennan Huff]

Be careful. After my experience yesterday on here, there are certain people here who will take this as Allen bashing thread. 

[Chaos]

21 minutes ago, IgotBILLStopay said:

Any team with limited nonQB rushing will show that. Speaks to Bills’ rushing struggles with Singletary and Moss more than than anything else

 

for example in MNF, Daniel Jones had more than 97% (301 / 308). Speaks more to Barkley’s rushing struggles than saying Jones is the offense

You may have identified the reason Allen had to carry the offense.  Does not change the fact that he is carrying the offense. 

[Chaos]

This would be a better stat if yards after catch are removed. Maybe I will do that later.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Chaos

[SCBills]

48 minutes ago, IgotBILLStopay said:

Any team with limited nonQB rushing will show that. Speaks to Bills’ rushing struggles with Singletary and Moss more than than anything else

 

for example in MNF, Daniel Jones had more than 97% (301 / 308). Speaks more to Barkley’s rushing struggles than saying Jones is the offense

 

Will be interesting to see A) How we run the ball against the Dolphins, and B) how the 49ers run against the Jets.

 

49ers offensive strengths play right into the Jets defensive strength.  If the Jets had any semblance of an offense, that would be somewhat of a sleeper game.

[Billl]

1 hour ago, thebandit27 said:

Unless you’re going to deduct the sack yards from his passing (which is what’s done with net total yards), you’re comparing apples to oranges.

 

Jones had 301 of their 308 offensive yards. Not good for the G-MEN.

That’s not correct, nor is it the way OP calculated his stats.  I’m using the exact same method he did.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, Chaos said:

In week 1, 91 % of the Bills offense ran through Josh Allen

 

In comparison 84% ran through Lamar Jackson, 79% through Kyler Murray. Russell Wilson was 91.6%

 

Allen  Passing plus rushing = 369 Bills total = 404 369/404 = 91.3%
Jackson 320/377 = 84.8%
Murray 321/404 = 79.4%
Wilson 351/383 = 91.6%


 

The game sure has changed... this way of looking at it is a little disingenuous as it over credits the QB  for WR RAC

[BuffaloHokie13]

People here wouldn't like the week 1 efficiency rating results, but a couple other interesting tidbits:

 

Allen had 63 total attempts in week 1. That's 6 more than the next most (Matt Ryan) and 22 more than the median (41 for Russ Wilson and Dwayne Haskins).

 

Allen was 4th overall for total yards gained by a QB behind Matt Ryan, Phil Rivers, and Aaron Rodgers.

[thebandit27]

36 minutes ago, Billl said:

That’s not correct, nor is it the way OP calculated his stats.  I’m using the exact same method he did.

Yes, it is correct. Total team yards are net yards. Otherwise the Giants would have to have had negative rushing yards aside from Jones; they didn’t.

[Chaos]

40 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

The game sure has changed... this way of looking at it is a little disingenuous as it over credits the QB  for WR RAC

See my post from about 1 hour before yours. Not the original post.

[starrymessenger]

Some young QBs boom, most bust. Allen booms and busts all in the same game. If he doesn't fumble twice, hits an open Knox in the corner of the end zone and John Brown I'm pretty sure we 50 burger the Jets. That would be a truer reflection of the performance gap separating the two teams yesterday than the final score. 

Allen's physical ability is such that he can be a dominating presence. After Cashman went out yesterday he Jets lost the guy who was supposed to spy Allen. And of course running the ball Allen is a load. But I don't think he should be our #1 RB. If Daboll keeps running him like he did yesterday I fear it's only a matter of time before he gets injured. He runs with reckless abandon. If he goes down for any length of time the season is almost certainly over. 

As a player in development for playing the most demanding position maybe the Bills don't see him as yet ready to take full control and and make the best use of the talent that now surrounds him. IMO that needs to change as the season progresses if the Bills are to maximize their chances for success. Few of their opponents will be as pathetic as the Gase led Jets. Theirs is the 10th most difficult strength of schedule. 

On the other hand Cam is somehow still getting it done with his legs so who knows.

Edited September 15, 2020 by starrymessenger

[JerseyBills]

Loving 404 total yards on opening day! 

I said all summer, this is a top 10 offense and they sure showed that potential on Sunday. 

[Mark Vader]

2 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Since this tends to favor qbs who run a lot, it would be interesting if see a historical study of how qbs who have such a % age.  I’m sure Cam, Vick, etc. were very high with this %.

Do you add in players like Steve Young & Fran Tarkenton as well?

[ngbills]

i think this is a dumb stat. All it shows is either the QB ran a lot or the RB had terrible games. Examples not that it is needed:

 

QB 1 goes 4-28 for 57 yards; 4 carries for 13 yards. Team gains 13 yards rushing. Wow - what a game by that QB! 100% of the teams offense.

QB 2 goes 28-30 for 300 yds; 0 carries; Team gains 200 yards rushing. We dont need QB2. He only accounted for 60% of the offense. Lets go sign QB 1. 

[H2o]

2 hours ago, Virgil said:

Too bad he's trash.  We need more out of a QB.  If he doesn't throw for 400 yards and score 50 points this week, cut him

Yep, go back and watch the film. That 71% comp rate, 312 passing yds, 57 rushing yds, and 3 TD's don't tell the whole story. He was bad out there on Sunday. 

Edited September 15, 2020 by H2o

[Billl]

38 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

Yes, it is correct. Total team yards are net yards. Otherwise the Giants would have to have had negative rushing yards aside from Jones; they didn’t.

Nope
 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/team/_/view/offense/stat/total/table/passing/sort/netTotalYards/dir/desc
https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/player/_/view/offense/table/passing/sort/passingYards/dir/desc

https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/player/_/view/offense/stat/rushing
 

Sack yardage lost is credited to the team, not the individual player.

[thebandit27]

1 minute ago, Billl said:

Nope
 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/team/_/view/offense/stat/total/table/passing/sort/netTotalYards/dir/desc
https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/player/_/view/offense/table/passing/sort/passingYards/dir/desc

https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/player/_/view/offense/stat/rushing
 

Sack yardage lost is credited to the team, not the individual player.

Yes, that’s what “net” means. That’s literally exactly what I said.

[billsrul120]

21 minutes ago, ngbills said:

i think this is a dumb stat. All it shows is either the QB ran a lot or the RB had terrible games. Examples not that it is needed:

 

QB 1 goes 4-28 for 57 yards; 4 carries for 13 yards. Team gains 13 yards rushing. Wow - what a game by that QB! 100% of the teams offense.

QB 2 goes 28-30 for 300 yds; 0 carries; Team gains 200 yards rushing. We dont need QB2. He only accounted for 60% of the offense. Lets go sign QB 1. 

As with most things some nuance is required.  It is easy to see that this isn't a case of cherry picking stats considering he was top 5 in just passing yards alone this week.  He produces a ton no matter how you look at it.

[Billl]

1 minute ago, thebandit27 said:

Yes, that’s what “net” means. That’s literally exactly what I said.

You’re joking, right?  The TEAM had 291 net yards.  Daniel Jones had 301 net yards.  It’s literally the exact same method OP used...because it’s correct.  He didn’t subtract sack yardage from Josh’s yardage total but did include the negative yardage when showing the team’s yardage.

 

Josh Allen stats:  312 yards passing, 57 yards rushing, 369 total yards

 

Team stats:  306 yards passing, 98 yards rushing, 404 total yards

 

369/404 = .913 (91.3%) <— Literally the exact number the OP cited.

 

 

Daniel Jones stats: 279 yards passing, 22 yards rushing, 301 total yards
 

Team stats: 262 yards passing, 69 yards rushing, 291 total yards

 

301/291 = 1.034 (103.4%)

[thebandit27]

1 minute ago, Billl said:

You’re joking, right?  The TEAM had 291 net yards.  Daniel Jones had 301 net yards.  It’s literally the exact same method OP used...because it’s correct.  He didn’t subtract sack yardage from Josh’s yardage total but did include the negative yardage when showing the team’s yardage.

 

Josh Allen stats:  312 yards passing, 57 yards rushing, 369 total yards

 

Team stats:  306 yards passing, 98 yards rushing, 404 total yards

 

369/404 = .913 (91.3%) <— Literally the exact number the OP cited.

 

 

Daniel Jones stats: 279 yards passing, 22 yards rushing, 301 total yards
 

Team stats: 262 yards passing, 69 yards rushing, 291 total yards

 

301/291 = 1.034 (103.4%)

Dude, I wasn’t making a comment about the comparison to Allen; I was making a comment about the notion that Jones had over 100% of the team’s yards.

 

This isn’t rocket science here

[ngbills]

14 minutes ago, billsrul120 said:

As with most things some nuance is required.  It is easy to see that this isn't a case of cherry picking stats considering he was top 5 in just passing yards alone this week.  He produces a ton no matter how you look at it.

No question he produced. Just think its pointless to say he produced a certain percent of offense. That says more about the running backs than him. I dont think any team strives to have the QB be 100% of the offense. I would think most prefer a mix which means good balanced offense. A 60-80% number. 

[Putin]

38 minutes ago, H2o said:

Yep, go back and watch the film. That 71% comp rate, 312 passing yds, 57 rushing yds, and 3 TD's don't tell the whole story. He was bad out there on Sunday. 

Yes let’s forget ALL THAT and concentrate on the two fumbles and couple of missed throws!!!! 🙄

[billsrul120]

5 minutes ago, ngbills said:

No question he produced. Just think its pointless to say he produced a certain percent of offense. That says more about the running backs than him. I dont think any team strives to have the QB be 100% of the offense. I would think most prefer a mix which means good balanced offense. A 60-80% number. 

See I don't think teams strive to do anything but win the game.  Any talk about how yards are gained is secondary to that, including how many yards rb's get vs what the qb accounts for.  You are confusing the strategy (to be a winning team) with tactics (a certain split of yards gained). What we saw Sunday is that the Bills are capable of having a good offensive day and winning when the tactic involves Josh Allen carrying the offense almost single handedly.

[Chaos]

Updated to remove YAC from QB stats:

 

[Brianmoorman4jesus]

That’s how Murray is going to be too. College offense just spilling into the NFL at this point.

[C.Biscuit97]

3 hours ago, Mark Vader said:

Do you add in players like Steve Young & Fran Tarkenton as well?

I think it depends how much their running compared to their passing stats. Young has one season over 500 yards rushing so I think it’s a low percentage.  FT never had over 400 yards rushing in a season.
 

but this stat definitely favors running qb, kinda like fantasy football.  Brady passed for 5,235 passing yards and 109!!! rushing yards in 2011. That’s a total of 5,344 yards.  NE had 6,848 yards that year. So Brady’s % was 78%. In 2015, Bortles has 4,428 passing yards and 310 rushing for a total of 4,738 yards. The Jags had a total 5,581, making Bortles 85% of the Jags offense.  Would you say that Bortles was carrying the Jags more than Brady was carrying the Pats? Kinda insane. 

 

Interesting stat but really doesn’t mean that much in the big picture.  

[billspro]

6 hours ago, thebandit27 said:

This is how it has been since his rookie season. He’s not a big part of the offense; he is the offense.

It would be interesting to see him play with a good run game.

3 hours ago, ngbills said:

i think this is a dumb stat. All it shows is either the QB ran a lot or the RB had terrible games. Examples not that it is needed:

 

QB 1 goes 4-28 for 57 yards; 4 carries for 13 yards. Team gains 13 yards rushing. Wow - what a game by that QB! 100% of the teams offense.

QB 2 goes 28-30 for 300 yds; 0 carries; Team gains 200 yards rushing. We dont need QB2. He only accounted for 60% of the offense. Lets go sign QB 1. 

you can find flaws in any stat. This stat over the course of the year will show the support from your running game. Allen has had very little running game support most of his career. 

[Mat68]

6 hours ago, thebandit27 said:

This is how it has been since his rookie season. He’s not a big part of the offense; he is the offense.

You can tell what media personalites actually watch Buffalo play.  The offense goes as Allen goes.  If Allen plays this way all season Buffalo are Superbowl contenders.

[ngbills]

1 hour ago, billspro said:

It would be interesting to see him play with a good run game.

you can find flaws in any stat. This stat over the course of the year will show the support from your running game. Allen has had very little running game support most of his career. 

Is this a quality or quantity issue? The Bills use Allen as part of the running game and I dont think it is because they lack a running game. It is part of the strategy because they value that part of his game. Singletary did have 750 yards on only 150 carries. I would speculate he is a 1000 yard rusher if he is given a big work load. Add in that Gore did rush for 600 last year and you had 1400 yards from your RB's. I would say regardless of Allen we have at least a decent running game. Add in Allen and it makes it a stronger one. 

[HomeTeam]

That's great and all but I'd love to get the running game more involved. My dear is that Allen will get injured. He takes way too many hits.