HappyDays
-
Posts
26,586 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HappyDays
-
-
2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:
I'll go with Stafford or Favre. They were pretty good.
It's a problem when one of your examples was drafted in 1991, and the other - even ignoring my disagreement with the comparison - hasn't won a single playoff game in his 9-season career. And those are the best comparisons you could come up with!
-
6 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:
You can keep repeating this as long as you like, but it's just not true. This was written about Stafford pre-draft: " Too often leads his receivers too far or forces them to reach back, slowing their momentum and limiting their ability to generate yardage after the catch."
Stafford didn't have elite accuracy but he clearly had adequate accuracy. I'm not saying he's the most accurate prospect in a generation but he was miles ahead of where Josh Allen is now. His scouting report specifically mentioned accuracy to all areas of the field as a strength. He was less consistent than would be ideal but it was not a complete mess like Allen's is. If Stafford had a game as bad as Allen's against Boise St I'd like to see it.
-
9 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
Why not?
That's really weird. If I was a Texans can this would make me more concerned about Watson's knee but maybe they're just doing their due diligence.
-
29 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:
You spoke to how each player's accuracy was described; my point is that I don't care how it's described. Both players faced accuracy questions coming out of school.
As for Allen's accuracy always being discussed as a negative, well, that's not true.
Notice all the qualifiers. "Able to thread the needle." "Can roll right..." "Pretty good precision when allowed to sit in the pocket." No such qualifiers were used for Stafford because he was accurate more often than not. Look at the negatives on any one of Allen's scouting reports, ball placement always comes up. Look at the negatives on Stafford's scouting reports. They don't mention his ball placement, they mention his decision making. They're not similar prospects at all. The only thing they share is a strong arm. This should be immediately obvious by the fact that even though Allen's arm is even stronger than Stafford's, he is not a consensus #1 pick like Stafford was.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:
Who cares how their respective accuracies are described? They're less than 1% different
Are we really drilling down to phrasing at this point?
Earlier you said just going off of completion percentage is lazy. But now you're conflating completion percentage with accuracy. I don't care what Stafford's completion percentage was. EJ Manuel had a better completion percentage in college but clearly was less accurate than Stafford.
-
27 minutes ago, JohnC said:
Just think if the Bills would have drafted either Mahomes or Watson last year? This upcoming draft would be exciting not for the unending discussion about a qb but for the expected infusion of players with the added picks. In my view the rebuilding process would have been accelerated instead of delayed for the never-ending quest to find a franchise qb. The "what if" debates can be gut wrenching.
If we had drafted Mahomes we'd have a total unknown getting ready to start for a team with one of the worst receiving corps in football. If we had drafted Watson we'd have a guy who showed promise, but also had the 3rd worst INT rate among starting QBs and just tore his 2nd ACL in 4 years. The grass is always greener until you take a closer look.
-
9 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:
Your comments about Stafford are revisionist history:
http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/matthew-stafford?id=79860
"Sloppy footwork. ... Will get lazy and throw off his back foot, which could lead to turnovers in the NFL... ... Willing to throw into tight spots, though more often than not he places the ball where it needs to be... ... Not great accuracy on crossing routes. ... Too often leads his receivers too far or forces them to reach back, slowing their momentum and limiting their ability to generate yardage after the catch."
Look at the bold. "More often than not" he had good ball placement. That is absolutely not the case with Josh Allen. Look at Stafford's strengths from the same profile:
Blessed with a stronger and more accurate arm than many current NFL quarterbacks... Efficient footwork and depth on his drop from center. ... Quick to scan the field and go through his progressions ... Can make all the throws and shows power and toughness getting the ball deep even when defenders are closing and making contact. ... Consistent with excellent accuracy to all levels of the field. ... Consistent placing the deep out on the far shoulder of his receiver, away from the defender. ... Has good deep accuracy and trajectory. ... Lofts the ball high enough to allow his receiver to run under it.
You won't find any scouting report of Josh Allen that reads like this. Stafford's accuracy is brought up as a positive; Allen's is always a negative. His positives are exclusively tied to his physical traits.
-
8 minutes ago, JohnC said:
Why do you think that Mahomes is going to be a bust? KC handled him the way Allen is probably going to be handled. His first year was a prep year for the most part. He played in the last game and did well. Mahomes must have impressed the KC staff well enough for them to dispatch their long term starter.
I like Mahomes better than I like Allen. Mostly because he can throw on the run and I think his deep ball is much more accurate than Allen's. When Allen moves his feet his ball placement is terrible. I see him as being an all time bust if he goes in the top 5.
And I think Mahomes will bust because he isn't accurate enough on the common throws every QB needs to make. I agree KC did the right thing sitting him his whole rookie year. I am less sure that they did the right thing jettisoning Alex Smith and forcing Mahomes into the starting role. Smith was one of the best QBs in the NFL at pushing the ball down the field last year. He had the #1 passer rating on deep throws. That's supposed to be Mahomes's strength but it's incredibly unlikely that he'll do better than Smith did. I think it will blow up in their face but we'll see.
-
37 minutes ago, FeelingOnYouboty said:
You're pointing to Matt Stafford as the one QB who's had okay success at the NFL level but completely ignoring the long list of guys who've completely flamed out.
Matt Stafford isn't a good comparison anyways. He was a consensus #1 because on top of his elite arm strength he also regularly threaded the ball into tight windows and was generally accurate. He had better footwork than Josh Allen and he played well against pressure (Allen is terrible with even a small amount of pressure). The questions on Stafford were on his decision making/gunslinger attitude. Rosen is a much better comparison to Stafford IMO. Josh Allen is like Kyle Boller.
5 minutes ago, BuffaloSol said:The kid shows flashes of greatness, has all the physical tools, along with the willingness to work hard.
Haha this is exactly what people used to say about EJ. Word for word. I hated when we picked him too. Any time a QB is being touted for his "physical tools" you know he is a 2nd round project at best.
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:
Let's make it all about the %age; we'd much rather have guys that completed nearly 67% of their passes in college like Tim Tebow and EJ Manuel.
Yep this is why I don't care about completion percentage at the college level. Manuel was exactly the same type of prospect and failed the same way Josh Allen will fail.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:
Show me and we'll discuss it, because I've shown examples of the opposite in this thread.
You've shown a few examples of good throws. I'm talking about the overall trend. I could go find that Eliot Crist Twitter thread, it's pretty open and shut. He will not suddenly fix his terrible ball placement and decision making when the game is moving 10 times faster. It's never happened before. I have to think that if Mahomes and Allen bust we'll stop seeing these kinds of QBs get drafted high.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Mickey said:
In the end, all our debate here is over which of us is better at predicting the future. And if any of us could do that accurately, we would live in Vegas.
No I'm unsure about most QBs going in the 1st round. Not Josh Allen. I am sure he will be a bust. If I could make a living betting against every 1st round QB like him I would. No one with his scouting profile has lasted, not in this millennium.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:
Are we really condemning the kid to doom because he was 1% less accurate in college than Matthew Stafford and 3% less accurate in college than Carson Palmer?
I don't care about completion percentage. I care about his awful ball placement, mechanics, and field vision.
-
53 minutes ago, Mickey said:
Jackson will make some great plays, plenty of not so great plays and has a high risk for serious injury.
Not saying this is you, but there's a bunch of people who want to trade up for Rosen and also think that Lamar Jackson is an injury risk. That's the definition of irony.
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 3/20/2018 at 2:34 PM, 26CornerBlitz said:
Just what we need, more subjective refereeing that changes the outcomes of games.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, DFT said:
Love the article, but we’ll Agree to disagree. My opinion is he developed him to fit his program. He left a lot on the table for future development. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what this kid can do. I mean no disrespect to Coach P, either, because it’s so easy for me to critique the job he did, from my office, without putting in any effort outside of a key stroke, but I would have loved to see him a bit more developed, mechanically. We’ll see though. I’m very high on him as a developmental project.
That's fair, but every QB in the 1st round will need some development. Darnold needs to work on his throwing motion and interceptions, Rosen on not taking big hits in the pocket, Mayfield on his footwork, etc. With Daboll here Jackson should be able to fit into our offensive system. I've come around to seeing him as my favorite QB in the 1st round. Especially since we don't need to give up anything to get him.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, DFT said:
I disagree heavily and respectfully. I love Petrino, but my opinion is he left a lot of the development on the table (which is truly unlike him) and took advantage of his QBs natural athleticism. This kid has infinite untapped potential as a QB.
Actually Petrino helped him develop his passing game quite a bit. Here's a really good article about it:
Quote"What we did this spring was say, 'OK, we're going to work hard on throwing the ball on time,'" Petrino says. "When he took off and ran or left the pocket, I would just blow the whistle. He'd give me one of these—shrug, 'I would've run for a touchdown, Coach.' I'd say, 'I don't care. I want to see you throw for a touchdown.'
"So we just forced the issue. We took his legs away."-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:
Maybe but the Bills can offer 1 more first in any situation. It is basically impossible for any team to match the Bills. That’s the point. We have no idea where they draw the line though. If every team included all of their assets the Bills would get the pick.
Yeah but this was true of the Colts pick and we didn't get it. We COULD have offered more than pick 6 and three 2nds. Would have been an awful lot, probably both 1sts this year and next year's 1st. Personally I think the Colts GM just decided he'd gladly take a top 3 non-QB and the three 2nd rounders. The Giants could do the same. We can't assume they actually use the draft value chart exactly as it's presented. If Gettleman really likes Chubb or Barkley he might value pick 5 and a bunch of 2nds more than he values our 1st rounders for the next 3 years.
I can already tell on draft day if we don't trade up everyone will assume Beane didn't do enough to secure the pick. The option might not be there. Pick 12 isn't very attractive to someone looking to add a blue chip player. This is why I'm thinking we need one more trade up to around #7 before we can seriously talk to the Giants about #2.
-
It's not impossible for a team to offer more than the Bills. The Broncos can offer pick #5 and a bunch of other picks. That's what happened with the Jets. Don't count out other teams in the top 10. The Jets could even do it themselves to lock everyone else out. Anything can happen when you're talking about a QB class this well regarded.
-
It's a bad assumption that the Giants will just take the Bills up on their best offer. Even if we offer something better than any other team realistically could they can ask for more. I'm sure they'd be content to keep #2 if it came down to it. I wish I knew their price, it's an interesting discussion.
-
Everyone is assuming he needs mental help. He probably just took bad drugs. He's a new millionaire in his early 20s in Los Angeles, what else needs to be said.
-
4
-
-
I have to be honest, the last thing I expected to see tonight was Zay Jones's butt.
-
1
-
10
-
-
I would honestly cut my losses and move on if I were the Bills.
-
5
-
-
7 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:
Look at last year with the Trubisky trade.
CHI (Pick #3=89.55) trade with SF (Pick #2=93.83) results in a difference of 4.28.
4.28 is Pick #117 a 4th round pick.
CHI gave up (Pick#67 3rd round=12.99) + (Pick#111 4th round=4.92) + (2018 3rd Round ((I will use mid 3rd round-1 round))=4.81).
That is a total of 22.72 but the chart says it's only 4.28.
This new chart says that CHI overpaid by 500%?
I will say I sure hope NYG are using this new chart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for this. And by the draft chart I used that trade makes more sense. SF gave up 389 points when the chart says they should give up 400. So maybe when QBs are involved the old draft chart still works.
Previously the "Convince me Allen won't suck" thread, now the... "you're welcome" thread
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I like Stafford but the problem is he's the only QB from this millennium that you can even try to draw a comparison from. I'll stand by what I said, Allen is not comparable to Stafford. I'll agree that this is the best positive comparison you can make to Allen but it isn't a particularly good one, and there are numerous negative comparisons you can point to. The historical data is pretty clear on this - QBs like Allen do not suddenly fix their ball placement in the NFL.