Ronin

When Allen threw for 300-yards he was 0-1. When Allen threw for 240-yards he was 4-3. When Allen threw for less than 200 he was 4-1. When Hill ran for 100 they were 7-2. When Hill ran for less-than-100 they were 1-4. Tanner Gentry was responsible for over 41% of Allen's passing yards. Tanner Gentry was responsible for 50% of Allen's passing TDs that season. NEITHER were there in 2017 when his numbers plummeted and when Wyoming's offense PLUMMETED in scoring from 25th to 105th. Perhaps the entire narrative on Allen @ Wyoming is flawed. Otherwise how do you explain it, particularly given your comment on Allen being the best player with the unchallenged narrative that he had no talent on his team. Because it's funny how the second that the two biggest producers for Wyoming left, all of a sudden Allen's play struggled mightily, wouldn't you agree? Do you think that's all coincidence? Given that, which you must've looked into prior to posting as if it were fact (right?), do you still think that Allen was "the best player on a bad Wyoming offense?"

OK, I was waiting for that. Way to leap-frog the point. Point was that he was one of their higher-profile "non-draft" moves. The entire point is that McBeane has added almost nothing of impact-player caliber apart from the Draft where White, Edmunds, and Allen's status remains to be seen. Also, part of that point being, given that, why would anyone hang their hat on McBeane's/The-Process' methodologies in free-agency? That's a foolish proposition, they've done almost nothing "game-changing" in that way whatsoever. Obviously an inability to peg talent has at leaste something to do with that, otherwise would they A, have made that trade, B, paid Lotulolei that much money, etc.?

Actually, I deliberately ignored the YPC averages. But since you insist on using them, let's. Having said that I can't help but notice that you entirely leap-frogged, or was it completely ignored, the premise as to why? So your argument in then, your belief is obviously, and differing from mine, that the rushing contributions of a QB are what significantly contribute to their potential, and once achieved to the actual, status as a "franchise QB" then? As I see it, if one strips away the rushing performances of both QBs, Jackson and Allen, they've both extremely bottom-dwelling as passers, for rookies much more as NFL starters. Is that correct? Becuase that would explain the difference in our views. As well, if you believe that to be the case, assuming that you wouldn't be arguing on that premise given my argument, can you cite some modern historical evidence or basis for your position? Also, I'm curious, as the team overall goes, define for us the role that you expect Allen to play in terms of running the ball in the future, both short as well as long-terms, and please, be specific. An easy mistake. Even so, who started that game? It wasn't Allen, eh. What does that say, that arguably our best game this season offensively came with a nothing journeyman QB at the helm and one that hadn't played much recently on top of that?

LMAO Says the one that provides almost no relevant info or data to substantiate his positions much less considers things even remotely holistically, as evidenced by your end-all-to-be-all Rhodes-Scholar-ish retort using QB rating as a sole indicator, while failing to see that Allen's all but DFL league-wide, tied with Josh Rosen, by a country-mile lagging the pack at 32nd/33rd (out of 33) in ratinng. LOL, I'm still awaiting your reply to that one. Should be quite entertaining. Otherwise, says the one that takes nearly everything I write all but entirely out of its context while simultaneously ignoring well over 90% of the facts provided in support of my argument. Yeah, I take you seriously. LOL No worries, you're on my "just likes to argue with me" list.

Once again, nothin' gets past you, does it. "According to passer rating" I seem to read there. LOL I tend to base my positions on production. Nevertheless, since apparently you're perfectly willing to place the sum-total of Allen's relevance on rating, feel free to extend your bullish take on Allen according to this; http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/quarterbackRating/seasontype/2 Just in case you have difficulties with the link, it reveals that Allen and Rosen are essentially neck-and-neck, by the proverbial country-mile, in rating, ranked 32nd and 33rd, ... out of 33 that is.

Having said that and much more that's in this thread, moves like this are not what is going to build a playoff-competitive team, namely raiding the CFL and waiver-wire. We've gottan a few good players that way on McBeane's watch, aka "The Process," but thus far not one that has become an impact player. Most of their big-money free-agent have whiffed. Benjamin, Lotulolei, both not unsurprisingly from Carolina are among the most prominent. Hyde's been good and adequate at S but I wouldn't put him in the impact-player category. Offensively they've provided almost nothing for the future, and defensively the core of the D and the players that put up the closest thing to impact play that we have, with the exception of White who was streaky this season and Edmunds, were A, already here, and B, some on the cusp of retiring or already have. Williams, Lorax (36 next season), and Hughes (31) logged over half the team's sacks. Lawson is next with 4 for 22.5 of the team's 36. Besides Edmunds the rest are completely insignificant in the long-term and Edmunds was a draft pick, not a free-agent. Their best moves have been via the Draft, just not enough of them, and that's where playoff-competitive teams are built. Last season they turned 4 day-1 and day-2 picks along with the 1st pick in the 3rd round into two players when they could've had Edmunds with the 12th overall. Not a very efficient use of their picks, but if Allen works out, as he had better for their sakes, then it'll have been worth it. Either way, they have one pick in each of the first three rounds this season, given all of their needs, I don't see how they get it done in time to save their careers in Buffalo. Unless Allen breaks out like no QB that the Bills have ever had, I don't see "The Process" ending well at all.

22 is now "almost 25"? After the bye we scored 132 points in 6 games. 22/game. Check me if I'm wrong. Before week 17 we were averaging a perfect 18 points/game. It was only against Miami, a team in disarray, with the 27th-ranked yardage and scoring defense in an emotionally charged home-game that bumped that up to even 22, still below average on its own against season NFL standards. Fixing the OL is only half the battle, the other half is fixing Allen's short game. If we improve the OL, a tall order on its own given the plethora of team needs, and even with better WRs, if Allen continues to not see them on his reads then it won't matter. Here's to hoping that will happen, but until it does the OL isn't going to make nearly as much of a difference as that will. What's your take on why the media is slamming Lamar Jackson who had more rushing yards than Allen, despite starting fewer games, but praising Allen when statistically Jackson's the better short-medium passer and given that Jackson's 6-2 as a starter whereas Allen's 5-6?

Really, he's been great historically in the red zone? Can you cite his collegiate stats to back that up? In the meantime have you taken a few minutes to look at his red zone numbers in Buffalo? ... while keeping in mind that about half of the positives therein were from one game against the Fins in week 17, and yet, are still what they are? Have you then compared them to the rest of the QBs in the league much less to the handful of true franchise QBs in the league, even in their rookie seasons if you want to? I don't think you've done any of that. If you have you must've looked up the wrong QB thinking it was Allen. And please, try not to take this personally, but if you're just going to throw something out there, particularly something that isn't true, and without any basis or substantiation whatsoever, then be prepared to defend it. If you get upset it's because of that, not because I introduce a whole bunch of actual facts and substantiate an alternative position. Also very interesting is how narratives are formed simply due to people repeatedly saying things on overly simplified analyses. I'll give you an example. Everyone talks about dropped passes in Buffalo as if this is a concept foreign to other teams. Meanwhile, gone all but entirely unmentioned this season is how the Jets (Darnold), Cards (Rosen), and Ravens (Jackson), and yes, even Cleveland (Mayfield) all had more drops than Buffalo, in fact, at least at one point we were ranked in the top-10 for fewest dropped passes. I believe we are still in the top-10 for fewest drops (above-average) in finals. Yet, to whatever extent those other rookie QBS overcame drops, or not, they had more of them than we did. So if the excuse, as it appears to be, is that unless we have zero drops the bottom-line-data doesn't apply, that's ridiculous. I'm not trying to compare Allen to the other rookies in this case, but drops can't be part of Allen's excuse because he came out on top there relatively speaking. As to the rookie QBs, it's not a zero-sum game, all can become franchise QBs, all can also bust. Hell, I'll even throw in a bonus example; Everyone talks about how great our Defense is, right? After all, we're #1 right, or were for a good part of the season until the Ravens passed us late in the season. But based on what? They base it on a single indicator, yards. Because in scoring D we finished the season ranked 18th. Is that good? It's below-average. In Red Zone defense we finished 29th. Is that good? It isn't in my book. Ehh, maybe it is in everyone else’s as I can’t make that determination for others, but apparently that’s the case given the talk. … or is it complete ignorance of that fact? We also wouldn't have ranked 26th in sacks with our three oldest defenders and two that are well past their primes and living on borrowed time and with one of them already having retired logging over 50% of our woeful team sack total. We also finished the season ranked 8th in 3rd-down%, good but far from #1 or #2 but more importantly asking for a reconciliation between the two, because it's not as if the Bills were the beneficiaries of being allotted a bunch of garbage-time defensively. In fact, the only three games that even qualify for such a possibility were the first Jets game, the last Fins game, and the Vikes game, but all three of those games had us well-above-average on 3rd-downs rendering our 3rd-down D status even worse over the other 13 games which had no garbage time. So clearly garbage time was not only a non-factor, but when actually taken into account paints an even worse picture for the rest of the season. The D wasn't bad for sure, but I'm not sure it was as good as so many claim, if it had been then we'd have won more games like Baltimore who had no better talent offensively than we do, unless one considers Lamar Jackson as being so much better than Allen. Allen had more Time-to-Throw than any QB in the league according to NFL.com's NextGenStats. Another part of the false narratives is how the D was on the field so much because the offense "had no weapons" and wasn't good. Well, there again, the fact of the matter is that the Bills were ranked solidly average in Time-of-Posession, but more importantly they were ranked 5th in fewest plays allowed, which makes that narrative moot and sees it disintegrate. (FWIW Cleveland, Arizona, and the Jets all ranked among the worst 5) Even offensvely one would think, given the talk, that the offense was ranked 30th or so in plays run on offense, but we finished 19th, barely below average. The Cards (31st) and Jets (26th) ranked well below us. Yet, the Jets ranked 7 spots ahead of us in points scored with 4 more PPG under Darnold and no better, worse defensively by a long shot, supporting cast than Allen had. And yet Darnold while posting an OK rookie season was nothing to write home about. He too will need to make an enormous leap next season. Ahhh, but I can see the retort already, Darnold played the entire season whereas Allen did not. OK then, it actually increases to a delta of nearly 5 PPG then. Look, every one of these rookies as in any season will sink and swim on their own. All five have the opportunity to become franchise QBs, all five have the capability of busting. But we need to ask, what makes a franchise QB? The answers are multiple but consistent with the present as well as with modern NFL history. What IS NOT an integral part of the traits of a "franchise QB," and by "integral I mean what is present in each and every one, is A, running the ball or B, a "strong-arm." What IS an integral part of a franchise QB is a well-above-average short-medium game, which includes recognizing that sometimes the short dump-off will net you more yards than a 15 or 20 yard pass OTM and typically encompasses less risk, which is why they're called "high-percentage passes." It also includes, as part of that short-medium game, a well-above-average ability in the Red Zone. That’s essentially the difference between Allen and Darnold. Both have 18 TDs but Darnold’s are thru the air (17) whereas Allen’s are split nearly 50/50 and Darnold’s Red Zone performance world’s better than Allen’s is. Allen’s is near the bottom of the league, by a country mile before that lone Fins game. Another remarkable thing is that on paper, and according to the vast majority here, the Ravens’ and ours are comparable. On a per-game basis Allen and Jackson have about the same number of TDs/start, Allen's slightly higher but with Jackson's about the same if we include his non-starting play. Yet Jackson’s rushing yards/start exceeded Allen’s by nearly 25 yards whereas his passing yards/start lag Allen’s by several yards fewer than that. Allen’s compl. % is 5 points lower, which is significant because it primarily reflects that short-medium game that he struggles mightily with. Keep in mind, these numbers are all with a lights-out performance in a rare emotionally-charged home game to benefit Allen, the kind of game that nearly doubled many of his averages. So the game was a huge outlier statistically. Whether or not he can play more along those lines than along the lines of his steady-state this season otherwise is the one-million-dollar question. The other rookie QBs with the possible exception of Rosen, but maybe not even, were all more consistent however. Also, Jackson’s YPA (7.05) and Adjusted YPA (6.83) were also notably higher than Allen’s. (6.56, 5.44) for deltas of .49 and more relevantly, 1.39. So much for the impact of that strong-arm, wouldn't you agree? Otherwise, reconcile that with data. But most importantly is their INT%. Allen ranks dead last of all starting QBs. In fact, of the rookies, Jackson’s ranks the highest at just ahead Brady, tied with Watson and just behind Wilson and Wentz. Lastly, and while I’m not a big “wins are the only thing that counts” guy, but many are, many here even, and Jackson’s 6-2 as a starter whereas Allen is 5-6 as a starter. The big difference in their games is that Jackson is better in the short-medium game and his INT% is less than half of Allen’s. There’s a reason for that but few people seem to be able to pick up on what that reason is despite the fact that it’s been stated here by a few people repeatedly. Here’s where I’m having difficulties with narratives, particularly as it pertains to Allen vs. Jackson. The talk right now of Jackson is highly critical as to whether or not he can be a franchise QB. “He runs too much” although only slightly more than Allen. “He’s not a great passer” despite the fact that his short-medium game, which includes the Red Zone game, is better than Allen’s. For Allen it’s “he’s the next franchise QB in waiting” and he “shoulda been the 1st overall pick” even. Really?! Over Mayfield? Please. I’d make that swap in a NY second right now. Mayfield’s the only one from this draft class at the moment, as well as prior to the draft, that IMO has the best odds for being a franchise QB. They’ve got comparable overall passing TDs, Allen & Jackson, but Allen’s started over 50% more games and frankly, before the Miami game Allen’s numbers were horrific. Hence, on a per-game basis, Jackson's better in the passing department, spin it as you may. So why the disparity between Jackson and Allen in the media, it makes no sense, none whatsoever. The criticisms that apply to Jackson simply don’t seem apply to Allen, and the props that apply to Allen don’t all seem to apply to Jackson. Why not? Because they should if we're going to be fair. Again, this is simply to demonstrate the power of narratives, whether substaniated or not.

Interesting comment. I won't disagree, his short-medium stats comparatively are near bottom-dwelling. It should be beyond clear that the deep-game, that McBeane put so much emphasis on, is merely one relatively minor element of a good QB much less a franchise QB. Interestingly, those other QBs in the rankings after Allen have their teams overall scoring a whole lot more points. We ranked 30th and sucked in the Red Zone, both on D as well as O. Besides, that stat is for just a single game it would appear, not a season average. Frankly, the deep game hasn't been nearly all that prolific for us this season.

He's horrific in the Red Zone, worse than all of his draft peers.

Valid point. I'll take my analysis over your opinionated nonsense that renders his steady-state performance essentially all but entirely contingent upon a single game. So by your take we can expect Allen next season to have 48 TDs, 16 INTs, a rating of 115, better than a 65% compl. %, but only 3,500 yards passing, and challenge for leading the league across the board for QBs. Noted. Oh, and he'll have about 150 carries for over 1,500 rushing yards. Phew, I nearly forgot. I see your point. A much more optimistic "analysis." Nothin' gets past you I can see.

It's a good question, but to me the bigger question is what will make them competitive in the playoffs. As we saw, merely "making the playoffs" can happen all but by accident and by backing in. There's a whole lotta work to do, and unless you're a believer that a franchise QB can lead by running the ball while possessing a near bottom-dwelling, if not bottom-dwelling outright, passing game, then Allen's really gotta make a leap in his short-medium game, aka Red Zone game, in particular. For those thinking that Allen will run, run, run his way into the history books, there's absolutely no basis for such a belief. Lots of needs. Kyle retiring. Lorax 36 next season and living on borrowed time. As it is, this is his best stretch since he posted most of his sacks over the first half of the season in his first year here. In short, can't count on that going forward and as it is, those two were responsible for a third of the team's sacks this season with Hughes as the only other sack-generating player but one that's also inconsistent. Lorax had 10 of his sacks in his first 9 games in Buffalo, and 5.5 over a 7-game stretch this year, and 6.5 in his other 19 games almost entirely in-between those games. As it is we finished 26th in sacks. It can't be a good sign when a 35-year old DT on his retirement tour is one of your leading sack getters with the other two being a streaky 35-year old and a DE that'll be 31 next season that's also streaky. It might be a problem going forward that Lawson and Murphy are your best pass-rushers otherwise. Neither one is much better than average. While we finished 2nd to Baltimore in yardage D, the scoring D lagged that by 16 spots at 18th, which isn't good. And frankly, it's about keeping points off the board first and foremost, not yards. Not sure why yards is the primary indicator. If you can't keep 'em from scoring in the red zone, and frankly, our yardage D stats are skewed because we were DFL in the league in starting field position allowed. Which reflects at least somewhat on the offense and special teams, but which masks a lot of problems on D, particularly given our 18th rank just mentioned. We ranked 30th in Red Zone scoring allowed, so if the D was really so good, why? Need a whole lot on offense and I'm not convinced that better WRs are going to help Allen as significantly as many seem to think they will. If he can't hit them, or even find them, it won't matter in the passing game. How much can/will Allen run next season? Can he play while structuring the lion's share of his contributions on the ground? What about the RB(s)? What role do they then have, merely a support role for a running QB? Asking seriously here. If they get a RB and have him run more, what, with Allen's rushing we run the ball 70% of the time? Would that work? Or does Allen not run, but then what with his passing game, which is bottom-dwelling right now? No current WRs on the team that are proven 1/2 WRs, unless you're a believer in Foster, still, he has yet to prove it. He's gotten a significant amount of yardage, and scores, while being uncovered. Can't see that lasting. Having said all that, if the concern is strictly "making the playoffs," we probably have a better chance next season then we've had in a while from a scheduling perspective. Besides the Pats, who are faltering, we don't play a single one of the six teams that had more than 10 wins. We play only two playoff teams otherwise in Dallas and Baltimore. And we play Baltimore, the AFC team, at home. After that, the only teams with winning records from this year on our schedule, again, apart from the Pats, are Pittsburgh (9-6-1) and Philly (9-7). So not exactly a tough schedule as of now. A LOT of work to be done to make the team competitive and just about all of it hinges on Allen making enormous strides in the passing game.

Man, we were at Pappas' and Southgate Lanes watching. We almost went to the game but decided to watch it locally instead. Worst game-choice decision of my life. UGH! We missed one TD while moving from Pappas' to SG Lanes, and moments after Reed had scored even. It was cool tho, the entire 11-O'Clock news was Bills and then some. Party-time in Buffalo.

LOL At least be honest. There's an element called time, that passes. This past game essentially doubled many of Allen's stats. He went from a whopping 2 TDs in the red zone to 4 in this past game. They were what they were at the time I wrote it. Nice to see either A, your astuteness in realizing the time-stamp of that post, or B, your sincerity in responding. Either way, Allen had more Time-to-Throw than ANY QB in the entire league. Yet, his passing stats are bottom-dwelling, even among the rookies, with his only competition being Rosen, who has all but indisputably the worst OL in the game by consensus and no better "weapons" than Allen had. You seem to argue with everything I put out. What's up with that? I'll say "Blue!" I'm sure you'll have a retort for that too. Honestly, give it a rest. If you truly believe that Allen's playing anything but highly questionable football in the passing game, great, have at it. Just don't be surprised that if it doesn't improve massively that the team's looking for a new QB in the 2020 Draft. I'll bet my life that he doesn't become a franchise QB because of his rushing ability. And if he does, he'll reinvent the game, really. Odds of that happening over him seeing his career end after two or three seasons of 150 carries/season end abruptly are all but nil. Why does everyone take issue with simple analysis and opinions as if someone's trying to hack their bank account or something? And doncha know, they design their rating systems to screw Josh Allen. We actually had several posters imply that.

I'd respond, really, but that's little more than a bunch of opinionated jibberish. I'll give ya something to chew on anyway. Say what you want about the OLs, but you provide no data/stats/context, anything. Check this out; https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/passing#average-time-to-throw As I've pointed out before, (which you've seen, right?), Allen has the highest Time-to-Throw in the entire league. That hardly translates to him having less time than all the other QBs. I'm sure you'll find a way to spin it, but that's not good given his passing stats. Again, didn't mention anything about his rushing, talking strictly his passing here. And his status as a future franchise QB will hinge entirely on his future worth as a passer, particularly in the short-medium game where he's simply not good. But you knew all that before commenting, right? Feel free to lecture me some more on failures of analysis. And when you consider that he's taken more time-to-throw than ANY QB in the entire league, yet in passing he's near DFL, I simply cannot buy into the argument that the OL is at fault, particularly with his rushing/evasive ability. Rosen? LOL He was no worse with less time-to-throw with no better an OL or cast otherwise. In fact, the Cards have pretty much the consensus worst OL in football. In the Red Zone Rosen threw 7 TDs and 12 1st downs, almost 1 TD every other pass and a 1st-down every third pass. In the Red Zone Allen threw 4 TDs and 5 1st downs, one TD every third throw and a 1st down every fifth pass. Again, those are facts on the season. Another fact on the season is that Allen was one of the worst QBs in the Red Zone (HINT: short-medium passing game) in the entire league. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't think that franchise QBs lead by rushing. Maybe you do think that, good for you if so, but the reality is that there has not been a single QB in the modern era of football that is or was considered a franchise QB that wasn't because of his short-medium passing game. And let's keep in mind that this was from an ENORMOUS boost in his season totals, a doubling, from 2 to 4 passing TDs in the Red Zone, in this past game. Prior to that he was a distant last among the rookies this year in short-medium passing, in particular the Red Zone where he was, quite frankly, really bad. I'm hopeful, but only marginally so. This rushing stuff is A, going to get him killed, and B, ain't gonna cut it long-term. I mean at some point there's no need for a RB. I don't see that happening, but right now the only way he's "good" is he runs a lot. Cam Newton without Newton's B-level passing game. And Newton's not a franchise QB.

Well, if you choose to miss my primary points entirely, there's not much that I can do. As well, if you cannot distinguish between rushing and passing, well, there really isn't any sense in even discussing this. Right.

Looks like a bunch of numbers to me without much basis or explanation behind them. I mean pick say "Red Zone Target Share." What does that mean? I assume that it means the percentage of time he's targeted in the Red Zone but it doesn't specify. Same for most of the other values. Either way, he ranks #2 there. Of what, how many? His team? I can't imagine that it's league-wide, but here's the thing, isn't it more important, much, to look at what he does with those targets in the Red Zone? I certainly think so. If we look at his splits so far in two seasons he's got 26 targets but only 10 catches in the Red Zone. That can't possbily rank well. Of those targets, again, half in garbage time or the equivalent. As was pointed out above, this last game, while padding his stats on the season, contributed very little to the win. His first TD did but otherwise about 2/3 of his catches came well after the game was effectively over. When it was on-the-line he had a 50% catch rate, not good. Jones simply isn't a clutch player, not even close. He's done very little in two seasons with the game on the line and hasn't even approached his early 2nd-round billing.

How so? Jones was the 4th overall WR taken in the '17 Draft. For a high 2nd-rounder much more is expected. 5 WRs drafted after him have posted more yards, in all but one case significantly more yards than Jones. 3 rookie WRs from this year's class posted more yards this season than he did. They were drafted about where he went; 10 & 12 spots ahead and 4 behind. 11 WRs from this year's class had more yards in their rookie seasons than Jones did. Nearly half of them were round 3 and day-3 picks. 9 were drafted at positions later than his. The NFL has made it easier than ever, literally, for QBs and WRs to excel in the passing game. This is why RBs have little value anymore as well. Meanwhile, Jones ranked 177th (out of 202) in catch % this season, well ahead of where he was last season. Last season he was 210th out of 212 with only Kamar Aiken and Breshad Perriman behind him. He hasn't had a single 100-yard game in two seasons. This past game was only his second game of over 70 yards and it too, like most of the most of the rest of his play, was in he equivalent of garbage time. Even in this past game, 58 of hiis 93 yards and one of his two TDs came when the game was already over 35-17 in the 4th quarter. He only had 3 catches for 35 yards and all of his drops in the first 3 quarters. If you look at his splits you'll see that he's a poster-boy for garbage time stats. He was at EC too, that was easily seen, for anyone looking that is, well before that draft. Those are all facts. Isn't it simply possible that he was a bad pick at 36th overall and the staff misjudged the value in the NFL of a QB in college that also made a living, in a spread offense often featuring 5 WRs, in garbage time? Because to me that's clearly the case and was upon drafting him. All of that was out there for anyone that did the homework, which the team should have done. In order to be a starting WR in the NFL you have to be reliable, and there's absolutely nothing on record that even remotely indicates that Jones is reliable when the game is on the line or in the early stages. This ain't college, there's no room for a spread offense like EC ran, perptually, and the talent that Jones is going against is far different than what he faced in college and he simply hasn't answered the bell like his draft peers have. He doesn't beat anyone. He's a project, one that isn't worth the time and energy and that likely will never be more than a depth-caliber WR. If McBeane treats him as one of two starters next season they do so at their own risk.

Thanks! But 4+6 = 10 < 15. Averages my man, averages. You said that Allen's TO ratio wasn't even close, I can go get the quote. It is relatively close when you factor in the pure luck in recovering 6 of 8 fumbles contrasted with recovering only 3 of 9. Either way, to paint it as a non-factor like you're trying to do is ridiculous. Either way, Allen is bottom-dwelling and your argument appears to be that TOs/giveaways don't matter when I've proven to you that this team under McBeane in particular, simply can't win games unless they win the TO margin battle, even then, a positive TO margin the team wins only 65% of its games when they have a neutral or better TO margin. When they have a neutral or negative TO margin it's nearly assured that they'll lose, having lost 16 of 18 then. They've won only 1 of 12, less than 10%, when it's negative.

BTW, I just reread that piece, it's excellent, his closing paragraph, the one that follows the one that I cited, also sums it up nicely. There is no comfort in betting on a quarterback prospect who does not consistently play to his skill set. Football Outsiders' own QBASE system projected Allen with more than a 60 percent chance to bust, due in large part to his inconsistent play breeding poor results on the stat sheet. Drafting Josh Allen is a commitment to developing a skill set that has yet to prove it can develop and does not have any tangible indicators to hint toward success. The gamble on Allen is too steep a price for the slim potential of a payoff. That's where I'm at, and if you want a QB like that you don't make a trade like we got in the rarest of draft opportunities to put all your eggs in one basket. As well, I disagree entirely on the whole "their/our guy" thing. A good coach should be able to coach any number of QBs and not simply one that appeals to them, particularly not one of a "kid in a candy shop" variety where he's flashy but simply doesn't get results because his fundamentals are so far below the norm that he becomes a huge project. I mean think of what else we could have done by drafting Edmunds with our 12th and then four picks that we otherwise used to get Allen to get some OL and a WR, and maybe even a RB to replace Shady, instead. Then get a QB This year when there aren't a half-dozen teams with a dire need in that spot. But alas, that first entails having a big-picture draft not to mention team-building strategy. McBeane behave like Whaley in this regard, going for the flashiest shiniest thing, again, kid-in-a-candy-shop.

Indeed The writer that wrote a pre-draft piece on him at Football Outsiders summarized it best when he closes by stating; "The conundrum with Allen is that these flashes -- the moments of pure brilliance -- come so few and far between. Allen dazzles once or twice a game with a play that feels impossible, only to look like a late-round pick for the remainder of his appearance. The inconsistency in Allen's play was supposed to be addressed by staying in school for another season, but that did not prove to be the case." I couldn't agree more. He should have stayed in school, too many QBs come out too early and dash their odds of success in the NFL. But hey, if you know that you're going to get a 1st-20th overall contract, it's hardly a losing proposition as most people don't make that kind of money in a lifetime, eh. Anyway, here's that piece, and if you watch the videos you can't help but notice it's the same Allen now as it was at Wyoming. He has next season to make a leap in performance, if not, time to start thinking of the next QB. Problem with that is that McBeane must then go. https://www.footballoutsiders.com/futures/2018/futures-josh-allen You don't name the all-pro cast of OL-men on the other teams. So I guess we're even. And BTW, everyone's been hammering our line, but I saw a time-to-throw stat a week or two ago and Allen's TTT was above average, well. So say what we want, I'm not sure our OL play last season was as good as everyone remembers. Woods was the oldest starting center in the entire league easily and far from hwhat he was in his prime, Glenn didn't play much, and nutjob also wasn't all that great.

You sure about that? Wanna post the numbers to back it up? Because I see the difference between this season's team and last season's team as being the difference between last season's 7th-ranked +9 TO ratio and this season's 28th-ranked -8. Cleveland had the 32nd-ranked -28 last season and are 4th this season at +9. Of Cleveland's 41 total giveaways last season, Kizer had 28 of them. 22 INTs and 6 lost fumbles of 9 total fumbles. He started 15 games. Of Buffalo's 31 giveaways this season, Allen has 13 of them. 11 INTs and 2 lost fumbles of 8 total fumbles. He's started 10 games, 2/3 as many. Kizer's rate of TO was 1.9, Allen's is 1.3, but the big difference there is the recovered fumbles. Allen's INT rate is worse than Mayfield and far worse than Jackson, his closest QB comp, and almost the same as Darnold and Rosen but both of them have more passing TDs, Darnold by over twice, and it's not because he has better WRs and RBs or even OL. Allen ranks 29th of 33 in INT%, not good. Either way, at the same rate of recovered fumbles, which is essentially pure luck, Allen's TO rate moves to 1.5/game. Allen has the worst TD/INT ratio of any QB in the league that has started more than a couple of games, meaning among starting QBs. Rosen's close, but after that it's pretty distant to the next one. Either way, if you think he can continue on that path and become a franchise QB, great. Not sure what to say, but that's my primary point, things are going to have to change drastically in that way in order for Allen to become a franchise QB. I understand that you disagree. On a side note I will point out that the Bills under McBeane have not been able to win games unless they generate TOs. Under McBeane they've only won twice when they didn't finish the game with a positive TO margin. They won with a neutral +/-0 against Detroit and then only at -2 vs. Indy in last year's snow game. When they finish at +4 they're 1-0. When the finish at +3 they're 3-0. When they finish at +2 they're 5-1. When they finish at +1 they're 3-1. When they finish at +/-0 they're 1-5. When they finish at -1 they're 0-3. When they finish at -2 they're 0-5. When they finish at -3 or worse they're 0-4. Last season Taylor had just over half the total TOs that Allen's had over a full season. The 0-16 Browns actually out-played us on average last seaason, the only significant difference was us having a +9 and them having a -28. Imagine if last season we had the -8 we have this season. You still think we've have finished 9-7? I'm thinking more like 2-14 under those circumstances. Say what we want about Taylor, but scoring was greater and TOs didn't happen much. Relying on TOs to win games is hardly a way to build a competitive team. Happy New Year!

Allow me to ask, what talent did Tyrod have that Allen does not? Benjamin was the team's best WR both years. He did nothing for Tyrod either. Can you name those better OL's, RBs, WRs, and TEs please? I'm not seeing it. Couldn't you also by the same stroke then, and not assuming that what you said is true, that Allen has a better defense to help him out as well? I mean weren't we ranked 1st most of the season until last week, and then what, Ravens #1 us #2? You think that a rookie undrafted RB in Baltimore is better? OK, not sure I agree. And frankly, who'se fault is all that even if it's true? And assuming it is, then why is McD/McBeane getting as much credit as they are for as you imply, leaving the offense talent-less? Big picture

OK then, your opinions vs. my analysis. "I do not spend that kind of time in analysis." I don't spend a ton of time anymore, but I'm good at it and efficient with it, and enjoy it, the same way that people enjoy TV shows for example, which I don't watch. None. So in the few hours/week, and primarily during the season, that I devote to that, I'm sure that other people spend it more fruitlessly elsewhere. I can run some pretty complicated analyses fairly quickly using Excel. The big key is knowing where to go to get the data since most sites simply proffer only the high-level stuff. BTW, I'm not sure how "holistic your vision of a fella" actually is if you dismiss any numerical analysis on him. It would seem to contradict the meaning of the word holistic/holism. Just sayin'. But yes, we will obviously differ greatly in our views as such, but keep in mind, I've watched him too, so I'm including all the things that you mentioned, which seemingly is simply watching him. BTW, I'lll dismiss the notion that you intended to be condescending. But see how it works? Knife cuts both ways, eh. Again, Happy New Year!

LOL Sorry If it makes you feel any better I've gone from zero hope post-draft to a flicker myself. That flicker will still be there until sometime next season when Allen either overcomes those things, or conversely, continues to struggle with them. If he's still struggling with them by mid-season next year then I'd say that the chances of him correcting them are nil. That's not to say that he won't provide some excitement, but my hope and presumably yours asl well, is for a competitive team, not an "exciting QB" whatever that translates to, yet fruitless passing in the QB department. If he can't at least add a good amount to Taylor's production, ... Right now he's not even doing that from a passing perspective. And Taylor at least minimized his TOs, his INTs in particular. Allen's close to duplicating what Kizer did last year in Cleveland leading to a what, -28 TO ratio season ending 0-16. For some perspective, the 31st ranked team had -17. Enjoy the game today if you're going to watch, should be a good one with Kyle retiring.