Mikey152

I never said it was a smart decision...I'm not defending his choice, as clearly he misjudged how long the ball would take to get there when thrown on the run. But you're wrong...he DID have time to set his feet. At the very least he could have settled. He wasn't rolling out so much as stepping up in the pocket. But he got excited when he saw brown open and thought he could get it there. the whole point was yes, it was almost picked...but it wasn't a bad decision, it was bad mechanics by a young QB trying to make something happen. It's not like the safety was baiting him...he just made a nice play. So as much as it could have been an interception, it was a lso really close to being 6. So was the throw right before it with a super lucky pass break up by Mosley.

To me, that's the real takeaway from the first half...outside of the turnovers, the Bills offense actually looked sort of...efficient. Even without a running game. Quick, accurate passes to open receivers...changing the plays at the line...pretty much the exact thing every critic of Josh Allen said he couldn't do.

We clearly were not watching the same football game... John Brown was standing still wide open by the pylon, but it was a long throw by Allen and he threw it on the run without setting his feet, which game the safety time to get over and make a play on the ball. It was accurate and his receiver was open...he just didn't have enough velocity on it to beat the safety. As for the Darnold pass, Bell was covered...hell, he was slowly walking backwards while Darnold was scrambling for his life. Darnold heaved one up to the back corner and the Bills defender, who was right in front of Bell, completely whiffed on the PD. As for sugarcoating...We didn't turn the ball over on that play and it wasn't in the first half, so I'm not sure what you're even talking about. It's you that's reaching with the "should have been a pick"...that's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.

Yes, he "just missed" throwing a pick...but he also "just missed" a touchdown on that play, too. Was a great break by the defender, but if that ball had a little more velocity, it's 6. It's not like it was a horrible decision, he just didn't set his feet because he thought his arm could get it there. Conversely, the Bills tipped several passes and Darnold threw a few that could have been picked, including the 2 pt conversion. Results-based analysis only gets you so far.

I think 9 OLinemen is unlikely...especially with the position flexibility they have in their top 7-8. Will probably carry an extra WR, LB or secondary player instead, IMO. Outside of that, and maybe who the bubble guys are a RB, S and CB...I agree with your prediction.

Just to clear up a few misconceptions... First off, Vertical and broad jump are highly highly correlated to agility. The muscles you use to jump are the same ones that allow you to change direction...explosive is explosive. The main difference between the two types of tests, however, is the deceleration (or lack thereof) required to change direction (agility) vs. starting from a stopped position (explosiveness). Things like footing, center of gravity, weight...all of those factors are multiplied because they apply on deceleration AND acceleration. DK is at a distinct disadvantage as a tall, heavy receiver with long legs in those types of tests. What happened, at least in some respects, is to be expected. That said, it doesn't mean he can only run in a straight line...it just means he won't be able to use precision to gain separation. He may need to round off a route more than you would like, but his combination of size (both reach and weight) combined with his speed would allow him to run away from corners AND separate from them physically. People keep talking about north/south, but the reality is he would be just as dangerous running east/west. Plus lets be real...this dude would be a split end in almost any offense. His route tree is already going to be limited based on the type of coverage he will most often see...he's either going to beat his man physically at the line against press and get vertical, or stem his route if he gets a cushion. Bottom line is, a guy that size with his flying 20 time is a nightmare and the kind of cushion CBs will need to give him, combined with JA's velocity, will more than make up for a few milliseconds of time needed to CD. If he is actually physical and can actually track/catch the football, he is a steal at #9

2x...both seasons under Reed. In 2017, Smith had an air yards per attempt of 7.6, and in 2018 Mahomes was at 9.2. It also clear based on their arm/skill set that the chiefs were looking to get more aggressive. Completion % went down (though not a ton because Mahomes is clearly a better QB) and touchdowns doubled. FWIW, Smith lost his job in SF for pretty much the same exact reason. For ***** and giggles...JA was at 10.9

Reed is probably not a great name to throw out there, considering he ditched Alex Smith for a far more unproven (and aggressive) Patrick Mahomes...

Not for nothing, but Foster mostly lined up at Split-End, not flanker...

You are completely wrong if you think every player isn't on their board and isn't ranked appropriately according to talent. Just because you have a starter at a position doesn't mean you don't want to know what is available. The player could be an upgrade, backup/handcuff, an heir apparent/cost control, or even trade bait (either in the draft or later). This is where I think fans and GMs differ. Fans are thinking about right now...coaches are too, most of the time. But GMs are trying to build a sustainable roster. They have three years from now in mind just as much as today. Position should really only ever come into play in "all else being equal" type scenarios, period.

I think BPA is too literal. It would be extremely rare that there is a single "best player"...usually it is a group of players lumped together. If two guys are in the same tier, they are considered the same from a value or talent standpoint...that's when you can start bringing in subjective stuff like personal opinions and current roster. If none of the guys left in that top tier fit your team for whatever reason, you should trade the pick and not just give them to a team that does need/want them for free.

I'm pretty sure you are the one that doesn't get it...what we are saying isn't even all that different. But what you were describing isn't BPA at a position of need...it's just BPA. BPA at a position of need is just drafting for need, because of course you would draft the BPA at the position you need...

7+ spots higher and I am the one making up crap? You literally just pulled that number out of your ass.

Here's the problem...every team needs different things; your offense needs to get better relative to other teams, not in a vacuum. If you pass on an A player for a B player...the team behind you is going to get that A player. Your team might have gone from a C to a B, but that team just went from a C to an A. BPA at a position of need as a statement does nothing to address the issue of reaching. In your description you said something about it, but the term "BPA at a position of need" literally implies you would skip positions you don't need. That is the definition of reaching.

Thats the point of tiers...to determine what is and isn't a reach. It's also why BPA at a position of need is not a good description, because the name alone IMPLIES reaching is ok.

I was thinking about an analogy that might help Lets say you want a blue shirt to go with some gray pants you got for Christmas, so you go to the store. When you get there, they are all out of your size. would you: A) Buy a different size (Draft for need) B) Look at different colors in your size (draft BPA) C) Look at pants that go with shirts you already have (draft BPA but at a position of strength) D) Go to a different store (trade down) I would say that as far as decisions go, B=D>C>A

It's not built on need...positions come into play, but more with regards to their intrinsic value than their value to a given team. Pushing players up or down your board based on position RELATIVE TO YOUR TEAM is exactly what you should never do

You're half right... Teams won't (and shouldn't) pass on a better player at a position they don't "need" to take one at a position they do. If that single player is truly the only BPA, they would likely trade down (or have traded up before they were stuck with just the one option) Whats subjective about BPA is who the Best player available actually is. Rarely is it just one guy, but rather a tier of guys that are of a similar grade. Using some planning and trading, you should be able to generally select players from an area of need from the top tiers on your board. What you should never do is skip tiers because the higher tiers don't have any players you need. That's poor asset management, but you see fantasy football players do it all the time...they will fill out their starting roster before even looking at bench players, almost no matter what, which would be fine if injuries, bye weeks and trades didn't exist, I guess. Repost from the Josh Allen thread: "Best Player available" is sort of a misnomer...it is incredibly rare where there is a literal "best player". Most of the time what happens is players fall into groups or tiers made up of similarly-ranked players (position is likely factored in somewhat, but from an absolute value standpoint and not based on need). When you adopt a BPA strategy, you should always be picking from the highest tiers left on your board. If there aren't any positions you need in your highest tier (or loads of guys left in that tier), maybe you trade down...and if there is only one or two guys left in a tier at a position of need maybe you trade up. What BPA really means is don't reach for need...you should trust your board you spent a year building. Crazy stuff happens to rosters in football, and you can always trade picks or players if you're in a position of surplus. Here is a simplified example: Lets say your team really needs an OL and a WR and does not need a QB or a S. Everywhere else is neutral. With your first pick, there are three guys on your board with first-round grades: QB, S, and RB. Your second round tier has 5 WR and 10 OL. The best choice would be to trade down for say 2 2nd round picks and draft a WR and an OL. That is BPA AND good asset management A good choice would be to draft the RB. That is BPA and neutral asset management A bad choice would be to take the QB or S because they are unlikely to increase in value from here...you may get lucky and at least you drafted "BPA", but it is poor asset management. A terrible choice would be to draft a WR or OL. It is not BPA and good asset management..

"Best Player available" is sort of a misnomer...it is incredibly rare where there is a literal "best player". Most of the time what happens is players fall into groups or tiers made up of similarly-ranked players (position is likely factored in somewhat, but from an absolute value standpoint and not based on need). When you adopt a BPA strategy, you should always be picking from the highest tiers left on your board. If there aren't any positions you need in your highest tier (or loads of guys left in that tier), maybe you trade down...and if there is only one or two guys left in a tier at a position of need maybe you trade up. What BPA really means is don't reach for need...you should trust your board you spent a year building. Crazy stuff happens to rosters in football, and you can always trade picks or players if you're in a position of surplus.

Whether or not I agree with the terminology, I totally get what you are trying to say and I agree with you...he was not an efficient passer, and part of that was due to ball placement. What I also think is, under certain (ie ideal) circumstances, he throws darts and can do so to all areas of the field. It’s those throws where he needs to gear down a little or quickly move his feet that he seems to be less consistent with...I’m not sure he will ever be more than ok at them. It’s the downside of having a rocket arm...you have to take so much off to get the proper trajectory, it’s almost impossible to maintain proper mechanics consistently...if you’ve ever tried to throw a football to a small child, it’s almost impossible to slow your arm down and still throw an accurate spiral. The other misfires are often timing related...throwing to a spot too early or too late (or right on time but your receiver is early or late) can have a huge impact, and throwing as hard as he does only exacerbates the problem because receivers don’t have as much time to adjust and make the throw look even wilder than it really is. I think those issue will work themselves out over time.

Precision can be calculated in one of two ways when it comes to throwing a football, and neither of them are possible during a live game due to A) a sample set of 1 per pass attempt (ie every attempt is different and has a million variables) and B) Throws are spacial, time-relevant, and optimal location (and therefore intent) is contingent on situation. So the reality is...we really only are talking about accuracy here. But, semantics aside...clearly the evaluation of accuracy is flawed for some of the same reasons (B) and because an "accurate pass" is subjective...it's why opinions on Josh Allen's accuracy varies so wildly. I don't have stats to back it up, but I would say that from a strictly observational standpoint...When Josh Allen has time and a clean pocket, he has the ability to deliver the football as accurately and consistently (ie precisely) as anyone in the league to all levels of the field. I don't recall too many misfires, and conversely saw quite a few dead-accurate passes, in this scenario. I think he would destroy other QBs at an "accuracy" skills challenge, for example. Where he struggles is when he is rushed, trying to do too much, and misreads/miscommunication. Those are all things that get better with experience, IMO (and with better teammates)...and I think for those of us that have watched him, it's why he looks a lot better when you watch him than he does on paper. I think OP's analysis at least partially helps to bridge that gap.

These threads are often so misguided...I'm pretty sure some of you would replace half the roster with rookies and other teams trash if you could, then you would complain when they suck. You'd also complain when our trash looks great on other teams. I still remember threads about how the Bills had the "worst WR corps in the league outside of Sammy" when they had Watkins, Woods, Goodwin and Hogan on the same team. Whoops. What this team really needs is...time. Maybe some consistency. And a quarterback (which takes, get this, time). Zay Jones is more than a Slot receiver. Dawkins is more than a guard. Hell, even the bottom half of the receiver roster has potential under the right circumstances..they are just young. This team should look for a few upgrades in FA at any position on the roster, including defense. Then draft BPA not counting QB. In a case where grades are close, I would hope they lean towards WR, OL or TE...but I also wouldn't mind a stud DLineman.

That is just something people say...It's not real. And I am not just talking about 40 times. The jumps in particular are fairly indicative of a player's explosive ability.

Ah, so you prefer anecdotal to analytical...gotcha The point is he is a good athlete, so if he is "playing slow" it's not because of his physical ability. Personally, I think it's bs until somebody shows me the contrary. He;s been able to get separation, even last year...he just has had problems dropping it or being targeted so far in his young career. Jerry Rice had similar problems. It happens to the best of them.

Somebody earlier said Zay isn't fast/explosive/etc... At the combine (which was just last year for him) he measured 6'2" and 201 pounds with a 4.45 40, 36.5 inch vertical, 133 inch broad jump and 4.01/11.17 shuttles. Those were all top 12 times in his class, and some of them were top 3-5 For comparison, Sammy Watkins was 6'1" 211. 4.43, 34, 126, 4.34 and Julio Jones was 6'3" 220, 4.38, 38.5. 135. 4.23/11.07