Mikey152

And those kinds of analytical metrics make perfect sense...because unlike statistical analysis, which measures team performance, these are actually individual player focused and allow you to compare apples to apples performance.

It's funny how football is only more complicated when it suits your argument. What the defense does, what his receiver does, what his offensive line does, what the weather does...all of these things are completely out of a quarterback's control and ALL of them factor into the outcome of a play, which is what statistics are based on. That is 100% the reason why stats are a silly way to evaluate performance, and the idea that someone who never even played the sport has the ability to identify, understand and isolate the variables in order to assess players is just...silly. I see it happen all the time at work. Metrics designed by people that understand metrics but not the process they are measuring. 10/10 times it leads to garbage metrics that only look good on paper.

How is footwork mental? At all? As for bailing from the pocket? bull ****. They moved the pocket quite a bit and had a bunch of designed runs. Outside of that, he didn't move the pocket unless protection broke down and more than any other QB.

You're making an assumption based on little actual evidence. What evidence, aside from statistics which we are clearly demonstrating are multi-variable, is there that Allen cant handle the mental aspects? He set his own protections, took snaps from under center and has a developed play action game. What other QB in this class can say that?

The fact of the matter is, Allen's numbers on third down look remarkably similar to Rosen's. The big difference in their stats is that Rosen threw the ball 213 times on first down, and completed 141 (66.2%) for 1942 yards and 15/4. Allen attempted 90(!) first down throws, completed 56 (62.2%) for 723 yards and 9/2.

How is past performance "analytics" any more advanced analysis than things like release time, ball velocity, etc? Especially when performance based metrics are completely interdependent?

For all you Stat lovers out there... On 3rd down and 7-9 yards (aka the money down/distance for quarterbacks) in 2017 Player A: 10/24 for 132 yards and a pick. 8 first downs. Player B: 13/22 for 124 yards and a TD. 7 first downs. Player C: 15/22 for 236 yards and a TD. 10 first downs. Player D: 16/28 for 162 yards and a TD. 10 first downs. Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield, Allen....and that doesn't even factor in running.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21251222/the-great-debate-buffalo-bills-quarterback-tyrod-taylor

Well, I guess we should have just drafted JT Barrett...after all, he was rated higher than Allen, Darnold and Rosen by PFF. Better yet, we should have just kept Tyrod Taylor...his analytics show he is a top half of the NFL quarterback. Maybe even top 10. Analytics have their place. But football isn't like other sports. Sample sizes are too small and it's impossible to control for all the variables. Not to mention most of these metrics are gathered via subjective analysis by people who have no business or experience grading "tape". It's a complete farce masquerading as "advanced intelligence". It's also full of confirmation bias, selected sets, and tons of other statistical no-no's designed to get clicks. I see it as a way for people who don't have any real understanding of football and it's concepts to feel like they understand the game because they can relate more to stats.

I have the same problem with fans and media guys that say they know more than the pros as I do with the "Advanced analytics" guys... The problem is, both sets of people use the pros research to form the basis of their opinion, then go from there and act like they know more. In other words, if all you, Joe Fan/Joe media, had access to was game footage, measurements and live football (no websites, rankings lists, visit information, etc.) I don't think you would be anywhere close when it came to mock drafts. Just like how stats guys only apply their metrics once their data set has been selected for them via more conventional means... It's easy to say you'd take Rosen over Allen when that's been pounded in to your head all year. But without all the draft hype, my guess is nobody even knows who Josh Allen is. They certainly wouldn't know about random third rounders.

Some of you guys should google Antonio Brown's pre-draft scouting reports. http://www.espn.com/blog/pittsburgh-steelers/post/_/id/23356/small-and-slow-how-antonio-brown-flipped-the-nfl-draft-on-its-head-in-2010

Do you know who else was 5’10 190 with a 4.5 40 and primarily a return man? Antonio Brown. Dude was a stud running back in high school, and he runs with the ball like one. Also has great hands (watch his combine video). You could do a lot worse in the 6th round.

Ive only seen him in highlights and against Pitt...but one thing I will say I like aside from the obvious size and athletic ability stuff is, he plays with solid fundamentals when doing things like tackling.

He makes a pretty big assumption that it was because of Allen...and not their offensive line, receivers, etc. All this shows is that maybe they didn't trust their passing game...not their quarterback. Not to mention the fact that he played in the Mountain West...aka not the south. There's this little thing called weather.

What is Bill Belichick's quote again??? "Do your job..." Yes, Quarterback is arguably the most important and hardest job on the field. Yes, tons of guys fail. But at the end of the day, it is still just a position on the team. It isn't the whole team by itself and it doesn't operate independently of teammates and coaches...so why does everyone seem hell-bent on evaluating it that way? Just because a quarterback sucked in the NFL doesn't mean that scouting reports were wrong. Why is it that we say football is the ultimate team sport out of one side of our mouth, then proceed to pass judgement on individual players based on something totally non-contextual like basic rate metrics? Or even worse, wins and loses. For example, comparing efficiency metrics between a 4 year starter playing in a spread offense in the big 12 vs. a two year starter playing in a pro-style system in the big sky conference...how is that an apples to apples comparison? Or how about Tyrod Taylor having top 10 efficiency stats and making a pro-bowl? It's not just quarterbacks, either. A few years back everyone thought our receivers were garbage outside of Sammy. But Robert Woods, Chris Hogan and Marquise Godwin proved that on the right team they were viable. That quartet on the same team would look downright dynamic today....assuming they were on a team conducive to their success. And why is everyone saying Josh Allen has a low floor? Doesn't the fact that he is the best QB in the draft physically (and mentally if you go by wonderlic) mean he has the highest floor? Baker Mayfield isn't getting taller and Josh Rosen cant reverse his injury history and both of them have reps for being douchebags...those are low floors.

I read it, and I have two major complaints... A) Football statistics around player performance projection are silly when you try to apply real statistical analysis. Any statistician will tell you there are too many random variables and not nearly enough of a sample size to draw any real conclusions. B) This was clearly written with bias based on that last model, where he complete negates the fact that variables like conference and offensive system have huge impacts on efficiency and explosiveness. The variation in quality of opponent, supporting cast and system varies WAY more widely in college football than in the pros. It's not exactly rocket science to deduce that the heisman trophy winner in a QB friendly, wide open spread offense from a terrible defensive conference has the best stats. It's also not a shock that a QB playing in a pro-style, downfield passing offense against generally superior competition has poor efficiency stats (and decent explosive plays). My point is, these numbers should be used to evaluate a player against their own expected performance...not against each other. Football, in the end, is the ultimate team sport...yet, here we are, trying to break it down into individual performance with stats. It's a joke. Most of these "tools" have to use projected draft position (ie the eye test) to weed out quarterbacks that, per their stats, would be "awesome" in the NFL. Any tool that uses the tool it is supposedly trashing to establish its scope is just...dumb.

I think you and I just have very different ideas of what a bust is, I guess. The truth is, he never really got a chance. He was replaced by McNair, Flacco and Palmer at various points in his career and only got one full season to prove himself, where it's not like he was a complete tire fire...he was just on a good, veteran team that didn't want to wait for him to develop. This is what I don't like about football fans, media, etc. Everything is so black and white, when the reality is the game itself is far more gray and nuanced. Great prospects who become poor players aren't always on the scouts...and vice versa. Things like fit, heart, luck, injuries, etc...all of those have huge impacts on a players career, and they are almost impossible to scout. The best you can do is project best and worst case scenarios and make an educated guess. Take this draft for example. There is no "best quarterback". Each team may value different traits. Tom Brady might not be Tom Brady on the Bills. Aaron Rodgers night have been garbage and out of the NFL if he didn't get to sit for three years. But nobody wants to look at nuance. They just say boom or bust and put it all on the draft. That's just stupid.

Kyle Boller isn't nearly the bust people make him out to be, especially as the 19th pick...JaMarcuss Russell or Ryan Leaf are more synonymous with bust

You don't agree with what? He is the biggest and strongest. That's not an opinion. He is also one of the fastest and most athletic outside of Lamar Jackson. Also a fact. He scored the highest of the major QBs on the wonderlich test...And he clearly has the strongest arm. His accuracy isn't nearly as bad purported, either. So again, it's not hard to see why he is a top prospect. Jamarcus Russell was a lazy idiot. All they have in common is the arm. It's a terrible comp. So is EJ Manual. EJ has a GREAT completion percentage in college and a super wonky delivery. Everybody wants Baker Mayfield to be Russell Wilson, but he is nowhere near Wilson physically. And he isn't nearly as smart as Brees. Not to mention all the other predictability issues...he could easily be Troy Smith.

He's the biggest, strongest, smartest Quarterback in the draft. It's not that hard to figure out if you are willing to project these guys a little. Clearly these projection things factor college performance pretty highly...go figure the last two Heisman winners finish at the top.

No, lets base it on completion percentage...probably the most useless stat a QB can generate. And better yet, lets arbitrarily set a number like 60% as the cutoff then use confirmation bias to establish it as the end-all-be-all of success. Oh, and lets correlate it to accuracy even though it is almost totally independent.

So, because you say it I'm just supposed to take it at face value? Did you see Wilson at this year's skill competition? Accurate my ass.

Do you think Cam is an accurate passer, though? Because he's not. At all. Super streaky. But he has a great arm and makes plays lots of other guys can't make.

That's kind of my point...it's lazy journalism based mostly on numbers, then gets repeated in "scouting reports" and on message boards. When you actually watch him throw a football in games and in shorts, it's clear he is talented. Maybe he isn't Drew Brees accurate, but he's not Blake Bortles bad, either.

4 guys...huge sample size. and we already talked about EJ. Not to mention the fact that the statement "huge arm" is complete bull ****. I could name you 50 quarterbacks who are 6'2" and "Accurate" with insane college numbers that flopped. And Josh Freeman made a pro bowl. He was a good quarterback in the NFL at one point and considered a future star before it all came crashing down for whatever reason. Not exactly a great comp.