GoBills808 Posted May 8 Posted May 8 38 minutes ago, Nihilarian said: 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and even the 2000s. Most of those QBs played in the past when offenses were different, and they judged QBs differently. Like Josh Allen, Matt Stafford is an exception, and like I said. Usually never happens. That 60% rule applies in today's game.Just a metric that teams and scouts now use. As I stated, Brian Billick tried to improve Kyle Boller when he drafted him in 2003 and attempted to fix his accuracy issues. Billick was a known offensive guru who guided the Vikings to an NFL scoring record in 1998. Improving in accuracy is not a normal ascent, as it takes a lot of work, determination, and understanding of what's wrong with the player's mechanics. Some players never improve at it and fail, like Kyle Boller. I'm not the draft expert, so if you care to know more about it, ask someone like @GunnerBill Look I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here Comp% says as much about your OC and/or the quality of your pass catchers as it does a QBs accuracy. They're not the same thing Quote
folz Posted May 8 Posted May 8 3 hours ago, Kelly No huddle said: 6 of the qbs you listed had a comp % worse or near Allen in their rookie years. All of them gradually improved from yr 1 to yr 3. Were they all getting more " accurate "? Of course not lol...If you extrapolate it out a few more yrs it generally improves into yrs 4 & 5. This is because of their understanding of nfl pro style offenses. It has nothing to do with accuracy. Comp % is 1 pillar of many regarding efficiency and offensive philosophy. Its a terrible barometer to measure accuracy It's even more irrelevant comparing it to college because some college offenses are throwing passes at the line of scrimmage a ton... Again this wasn't unique or some random arc. Kelly, Montana, Marino, Favre, Bledsoe, flutie, Stafford refute the point anyway even if you're just looking at comp % in a vacuum from college with no context. This comp% talking point got many gms fired. Its basically a useless statistic without context and using other variables I came late to the conversation, so maybe I misinterpreted the overall argument. I agree with you that completion percentage is not an accurate indicator of accuracy (I argued as much myself early in Josh's career), but I didn't think that was the argument. I thought the question was how much did Josh improve overall under the Bills' coaching/organization (not how much did his accuracy specifically improve-which I'm sure it did as well to some degree). Now around draft time, many in the media (and so called football experts) talked a lot about Josh's completion percentage and saying things like guys just don't improve completion percentage that much from college (not from their rookie years, but from their college numbers). That was the main reason everyone was so down on Josh before the draft. Now whether you think that is any kind of measure to use to draft someone is irrelevant if, as Nihilarian demonstrated, other people do think it is an indicator to look at. And of course, all QBs who aren't total busts should improve their completion percentage from their rookie year to years 4, 5, 6, etc as they learn and grow. That is just common sesne. But again, that wasn't, at least what I thought, the argument was. It was his improvement from college. And yes, Josh proved the critics wrong and had one of the biggest jumps from college to the pros in completion percentage. (He also had a huge jump from rookie year to year 3 as a Pro as well.) I also agree with you that the stat includes a lot more factors than just the QB (how good are his weapons, his O-line, the OC, the scheme fit, etc.), but it doesn't exclude that it probably does also indicate that the QB himself is getting better (as you point out yourself by trying to show that many rookies improve their completion percentage as they learn and get more reps). But still, very few have had as big a jump from college to the Pros as Josh. Is it all coaching? Of course not. Josh came from a small school, he didn't have as much elite coaching coming up as a kid like many other QBs get, so he had more room to grow than most, plus Josh has an intense drive and competitive fire that pushes him internally, and on and on. But to pretend that the Bills' coaches and organization had absolutely nothing to do with it, Josh did it all on his own, just isn't reality. It's the same argument about Josh having to do it all on his own for the last nine years to win games with no help from (or despite even) his coaches or his teammates. It's just not true. And you are bringing up some very old players now. I think it is safe to say that both the college game and the pro game has changed a lot since the 80s/90s. And just because the expectation for completion percentage of a college QB is 60% now, doesn't mean it was 60% in 1983 or whenever. For instance, I kind of think how protected the QBs are in the modern game definitely will improve completion percentages overall for all QBs. And still, only three of the guys you mentioned were not close to the 60% completion percentage in their senior years (Montana, Favre, and Bledsoe]. Here are some of their stats for reference. Kelly: College overall: 55.6%. Senior year: 63%. Career: 60.2%. Best pro year: 64.1% +8.5% from college to best pro year. Montna: College overall: 52%. Senior year: 54.2%. Career: 63.2%. Best pro year: 71.4%. +19.4% from college to best pro year. [Just to note, Montana's first year in college he had a 42.4% completion percentage (not sure why) that drag his college numbers down.] Marino: College overall: 57.7%. Senior year: 59.2%. Career: 59.4%. Best pro year: 64.2%. +6.5% from college to best pro year. Favre: College overall: 52.4%. Senior year: 54.5%. Career: 62.0%. Best pro year: 68.4%. +16.0% from college to best pro year. Bledsoe: College overall: 53.8%. Senior year: 54.7%. Career: 57.2%. Best pro year: 61.5%. +7.7% from college to best pro year. Flutie: College overall: 53.3%. Senior year: 60.4%. Career: 54.7%. Best pro year: 60.0%. +6.7% from college to best pro year. Stafford: College overall: 57.1%. Senior year: 61.4%. Career: 63.5%. Best pro year: 68.0%. +10.9 from college to best pro year. Allen: College overall: 56.2%. Senior year: 56.3%. Career: 64.0%. Best pro year: 69.3%. +13.1% from college to best pro year. So, in your posts, you said it happens all the time and gave us 13 examples. Yet, of those 13 players, only two (Montana and Favre) improved their completion percentage more from college to their pro careers than Allen did. Five of the 13 examples did not even improve their completion percentage from college to the Pros. And for the two better than Josh, you had to go back 49 and 37 years for those two examples---when it was a very different game/passing game. 2 2 Quote
Kelly No huddle Posted May 8 Posted May 8 1 hour ago, Nihilarian said: 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and even the 2000s. Most of those QBs played in the past when offenses were different, and they judged QBs differently. Like Josh Allen, Matt Stafford is an exception, and like I said. Usually never happens. That 60% rule applies in today's game.Just a metric that teams and scouts now use. As I stated, Brian Billick tried to improve Kyle Boller when he drafted him in 2003 and attempted to fix his accuracy issues. Billick was a known offensive guru who guided the Vikings to an NFL scoring record in 1998. Improving in accuracy is not a normal ascent, as it takes a lot of work, determination, and understanding of what's wrong with the player's mechanics. Some players never improve at it and fail, like Kyle Boller. I'm not the draft expert, so if you care to know more about it, ask someone like @GunnerBill I agree with you about qbs going back to the 60s. That's why I said earlier there's a demarcation in evaluating efficiency metrics before & after bill Walsh. 1 Quote
Kelly No huddle Posted May 8 Posted May 8 (edited) 32 minutes ago, folz said: I came late to the conversation, so maybe I misinterpreted the overall argument. I agree with you that completion percentage is not an accurate indicator of accuracy (I argued as much myself early in Josh's career), but I didn't think that was the argument. I thought the question was how much did Josh improve overall under the Bills' coaching/organization (not how much did his accuracy specifically improve-which I'm sure it did as well to some degree). Now around draft time, many in the media (and so called football experts) talked a lot about Josh's completion percentage and saying things like guys just don't improve completion percentage that much from college (not from their rookie years, but from their college numbers). That was the main reason everyone was so down on Josh before the draft. Now whether you think that is any kind of measure to use to draft someone is irrelevant if, as Nihilarian demonstrated, other people do think it is an indicator to look at. And of course, all QBs who aren't total busts should improve their completion percentage from their rookie year to years 4, 5, 6, etc as they learn and grow. That is just common sesne. But again, that wasn't, at least what I thought, the argument was. It was his improvement from college. And yes, Josh proved the critics wrong and had one of the biggest jumps from college to the pros in completion percentage. (He also had a huge jump from rookie year to year 3 as a Pro as well.) I also agree with you that the stat includes a lot more factors than just the QB (how good are his weapons, his O-line, the OC, the scheme fit, etc.), but it doesn't exclude that it probably does also indicate that the QB himself is getting better (as you point out yourself by trying to show that many rookies improve their completion percentage as they learn and get more reps). But still, very few have had as big a jump from college to the Pros as Josh. Is it all coaching? Of course not. Josh came from a small school, he didn't have as much elite coaching coming up as a kid like many other QBs get, so he had more room to grow than most, plus Josh has an intense drive and competitive fire that pushes him internally, and on and on. But to pretend that the Bills' coaches and organization had absolutely nothing to do with it, Josh did it all on his own, just isn't reality. It's the same argument about Josh having to do it all on his own for the last nine years to win games with no help from (or despite even) his coaches or his teammates. It's just not true. And you are bringing up some very old players now. I think it is safe to say that both the college game and the pro game has changed a lot since the 80s/90s. And just because the expectation for completion percentage of a college QB is 60% now, doesn't mean it was 60% in 1983 or whenever. For instance, I kind of think how protected the QBs are in the modern game definitely will improve completion percentages overall for all QBs. And still, only three of the guys you mentioned were not close to the 60% completion percentage in their senior years (Montana, Favre, and Bledsoe]. Here are some of their stats for reference. Kelly: College overall: 55.6%. Senior year: 63%. Career: 60.2%. Best pro year: 64.1% +8.5% from college to best pro year. Montna: College overall: 52%. Senior year: 54.2%. Career: 63.2%. Best pro year: 71.4%. +19.4% from college to best pro year. [Just to note, Montana's first year in college he had a 42.4% completion percentage (not sure why) that drag his college numbers down.] Marino: College overall: 57.7%. Senior year: 59.2%. Career: 59.4%. Best pro year: 64.2%. +6.5% from college to best pro year. Favre: College overall: 52.4%. Senior year: 54.5%. Career: 62.0%. Best pro year: 68.4%. +16.0% from college to best pro year. Bledsoe: College overall: 53.8%. Senior year: 54.7%. Career: 57.2%. Best pro year: 61.5%. +7.7% from college to best pro year. Flutie: College overall: 53.3%. Senior year: 60.4%. Career: 54.7%. Best pro year: 60.0%. +6.7% from college to best pro year. Stafford: College overall: 57.1%. Senior year: 61.4%. Career: 63.5%. Best pro year: 68.0%. +10.9 from college to best pro year. Allen: College overall: 56.2%. Senior year: 56.3%. Career: 64.0%. Best pro year: 69.3%. +13.1% from college to best pro year. So, in your posts, you said it happens all the time and gave us 13 examples. Yet, of those 13 players, only two (Montana and Favre) improved their completion percentage more from college to their pro careers than Allen did. Five of the 13 examples did not even improve their completion percentage from college to the Pros. And for the two better than Josh, you had to go back 49 and 37 years for those two examples---when it was a very different game/passing game. I generally agree with everything here but " it happens all the time " was in reference to future success in the face of a less than 60 % metric in college. Almost all the QBs listed were hall of famers. As to the comp % where there wasn't a significant increase like with Bledsoe. Bledsoe didn't play in a west coast offense to my knowledge. He was from the Earnhardt Perkins system which has an emphasis on reads from the deepest depth of target and a progression that gradually shortens. If Bledsoe played with holmgren or Shanahan, he'd probably have a 4-8% increase because of the shorter west coast concepts. I have to lean more about boller his arc as a qb, what his offense was etc. But if billick said he had accuracy issues I believe him... But the larger synopsis remains, Bledsoe was sub 60% in college in a post Walsh era and he was still a successful franchise qb. Many examples Its not a valuable metric without context and other pillars of evaluation. Beane said this in his interview with rich eisen about Allen and concerning " accuracy issues " My larger point in laymans terms is that allen never had " accuracy issues or mechanical issues ". Not any that were dramatic or not the normal arc all qbs that are young go through and work on. Beane said they looked at 17 hrs of tape and used their own adjusted comp %. He said it wasn't the top of the best prospects over many decades, but it was also in the normal range of current and past top prospects. To the point it wasn't a major concern Peyton manning for example also worked on his mechanics earlier in his career. To the point of perfection. But do i think Peyton had " accuracy issues " no. His comp % increased in hus first 7 yrs, every year. I just think he got better with experience and hus understanding of his progressions Edited May 8 by Kelly No huddle 2 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.