Beck Water

See, this is where I find this kind of thing worth discussing, because I started out thinking we fundamentally disagreed, and I'm almost entirely on the same page with you here. I agree it's relevant to look at how many bad games there are relative to total games played over an interval, and while I don't like chosing arbitrary intervals, that number appears to be increasing. I'm also with you that I looked at the elbow injury as problematic/explanatory of problems down the stretch last season. But we're hearing from Josh that's all healed, no problems. Yet here we are, so.... And we're on the same page that the problem isn't Josh needs more chain-mover easy throws, because they're there, Josh just isn't taking them. I 'm perfectly willing to believe that Daboll is a greater talent than Dorsey as a play designer. (I also felt that at times, Daboll got way too cute with what he was trying to do, but that's a story for another day). But as I learnt during my career, sometimes you don't need the most brilliant mind in the room working on your project; there are occasions where that helps, but there are more times when you're better served by a fundamentally sound, organized, competent worker. I think exactly as you say - while Dorsey did make some puzzling play calls at times, Josh had competently designed and executed "chain movers" enough to keep drives going, many of which he passed up in favor of bailing from the pocket and forcing balls into dangerous territory trying to hit the big shot and light up the scoreboard. And while sure, the whole team played badly in the Bengals game, I thought that was a large part of what went on in Josh's approach to the Dolphins game (where he got away with it) and the Bengals game (where he didn't). So it's now 3 games in a row. Once is an occurrence, twice could be a coincidence, three times is a pattern. I'm curious if you watched Dorsey's interview? I gave my take on it above and I don't want to influence if you didn't watch it and wish to, but there were several points I found interesting there.

So I pretty much watched the whole thing on Youtube. I don’t think the limiting Josh’s designed runs is news. I believe McDermott and Beane both talked about it after the season. The word Dorsey used was limiting, not taking out all together. Obviously to most of us, as a means to limit Josh’s scrambles or the hits he takes when he runs, less designed runs was a “fail” last game. It might be better to put in a couple designed runs early and get Josh some “contact” that he seems to need to settle him. I’ve never known quite what to make of Dorsey’s pressers. I didn’t like Daboll’s his first year and a half, either - I thought he improved greatly during his time here. Part of that went with improvement in Josh’s play so he wasn’t being called on the carpet by the press, which is what this presser by Dorsey was all about. I don’t want to conflate how a guy comes across in front of the press, with his overall professional competence or his interpersonal abilities 1:1 or with coworkers. A few thoughts: -I think Dorsey and Joe Brady have no real clue how to effectively help Josh out of a “Sugar High Josh” superhero mindset. Dorsey said something about “Joe does a great job” (of helping Josh on the sideline). But I can’t recall (maybe I’m missing something) a game where Josh was making unforced error after unforced error and yet pulled it together and turned it around. Anyone else? -Likewise I think they have no idea how to limit Josh’s running or persuade him to get down or go OOB and take fewer hits. It reminds me of a story where a French nobleman asked the King to intervene on behalf of another nobleman and the King response “I will do what I can for you; I will pray that he leave you alone”. I think all they can do is continue to point it out, and hope Josh absorbs it and makes changes. -Dorsey sounded most sincere when he said he had all the confidence in the world in Josh and when he said ‘all these guys want to be coached’. That makes me feel that at least outside the actual game, Dorsey has confidence in his relationship with Josh and feels that Josh respects him and listens to him. -I think their plan at this point is to hope this was a 1 game aberration and that Josh will take accountability and correct himself Time will tell. Edit: I heard a lot of concern from Dorsey for his own play calling and for scheme to put the right guys in the right places. So I think at the least, he feels the need to re-examine his play calling and even aspects of his play design. As he should, but how deep or broad this is can’t say.

OMG Good thing Cousins has that hypobaric chamber in his bedroom

I don’t think this is news. I think McDermott and Beane have both talked about limiting designed QB runs and building a running game that does not depend upon Josh Allen. Whether they will accomplish both, I don’t know. I thought that Dorsey had the mien of a guy who has been to the Prinipal’s Office - but then I thought that about Daboll at times as well.

You know, there have been times when I’ve been of this mindset. But these were unambiguously “unforced errors” by Josh. So this time, I don’t buy it. Josh had short passing options available to him on many plays. Not all, but many. He had options available on the plays that were intercepted and on his fumble (he could have recovered it and fallen on it). He did not need to play “hero ball” in order to move the chains. He also had a lead, at the point where he made those unforced errors. Sorry, No Sale.

I agree with you - I thought the Vikes were cooked but they kept fighting. Cousins got the crap beaten out of him.

Um, Cousins lost a fumble. No interceptions, but 1 turnover. So what happened last season?

Have the other team playing backups

Quessenberry at RT for the Vikes

Seems pretty straightforward that he should have gotten one, honestly. Yeah I don’t understand the whole can’t read defenses/ can’t make good decisions/ doesn’t prepare/ can’t learn/ focused on Hollywood stuff. He had a bad game, and it’s after the last two games he played were bad games. Allen has alluded to not staying within the structure of the play/needing to see the field as Dorsey does. McDermott has alluded to Allen running less and they talk about it but it doesn’t happen. So I think there’s some evidence that Allen may not be wholly accepting of coaching on some points at present.

I don’t watch much national sports media, so you could well be right with that.

No. Josh Allen played like an idiot on Monday night. He knows it. We know it. He has the ability to cut it out. He's shown the ability to cut it out. When he cuts it out, I'll stop.

There is a chance, indeed. But again...at this point, we're not talking about honing an elite top-level understanding. We're talking about making bonehead decisions that the man who "changed my career when he walked into the building" (Josh's words about Dorsey) should be able to talk to Josh and be heard about.

I agree with all this - but it wasn't IMO a binary process. It's not that Josh never displayed those bad traits when Daboll was here - because they surfaced and resurfaced. It may be true that perhaps that he was more able to accept hard coaching and that he was able one way or the other to be coaxed out of the bad traits and into disciplined play, better. Or, maybe he got positive reinforcement to be great from Daboll instead of hard coaching, IDK, I just heard about a "see how great you can be" video. Or, maybe he got both. Frankly, it wasn't that intrinsically Josh recognized a great football mind he needed to bond with and listen to right off the bat. Josh told a story about Daboll screaming in his helmet his rookie year after he ignored the play call and took a throw to the corner of the EZ that got picked. He said Daboll screamed until he was read in the face, then calmed down and walked away, then thought about it and came back and screamed some more. Josh needed to "bottom out" and have a terrible, horrible, no good very bad loss to NE 4 games into his 2nd season before he had some hard discussions with Beane and McDermott and made a decision to change his ways. Maybe this game will serve as a "bottoming out" to bring Josh back to the same realization. We fans can hope.

Oh, it melted into a puddle. Chernobyl was nothing to it. Source: Patriots fan. I agree with your 2nd statement. The unanswered question is: Can Josh Allen change his mindset and discipline himself to actually do just that?

Virgil, I love your honesty, even if I do sometimes feel you're the TBD version of Eeyore. I'm not too far away from you myself, actually. If we win, Great! but I'm not sure the Raiders D presents the tough challenge which will tell if any improvements in Josh's mental approach have been successful, so I won't feel comfortable until that's tested. Like you, I'll still have concerns. If we Lose, Gross.

Actually your statement I responded to was "But let’s not act like the current Josh allen is the same josh allen we saw under Daboll" For one thing, that does appear to imply that Dorsey is the problem. If you clarify that you don't believe Dorsey is the problem or the Dorsey/Daboll transition per se is the problem, we disagree about less. My point is that at times, the 2021 Josh we saw, is exactly the Josh we're seeing today. That's from watching the games, but data support this and I believe the graph I constructed from data (Oh, excuse me - the "artwork I posted") illustrates this point pretty clearly. @Royale with Cheese pointed out that in fact, Josh's worst INT year so far was actually 2021 and his fumbling was horrendous. We overlook this because Josh played lights out in the 2021 playoffs. My second point is that at times during 2022, the Josh we saw was the equal of 2021 Josh - calm, poised, able to take what the defense gave him and methodically move the ball down the field. I gave specific examples of games I felt displayed this, including 2 at the end of the 2022 season. It is pretty clear that Josh's play was worse after the GB game - that would be the Jets game, where his UCL got torn - so I point out that the QB performance picture is muddier and more difficult to sort from that point on, because of the injury. So no, I don't agree that "the point I'm disputing is absolutely correct", but I likely won't be trying to discuss this with you further because you see nothing to discuss.

Jordan Palmer in the past has talked about watching film with his QB, and in fact having film night with the draft class where they watched with Josh and some of his other professional clients. He's also talked about putting Josh together with 'mental coaching', whatever that means. I agree with you that this isn't mechanical. I do understand your point about it being easier to accept hard coaching from someone you completely respect as your clear superior. But Josh has talked about how much he respects and how much he's learned from Dorsey: "my career changed when he walked in the building". If Josh actually can not accept constructive criticism or "hard coaching" from Dorsey and take in what he has to say...then Josh made a foolish mistake in lobbying for a man he has stated he respects and has learned from to take over as OC, and Josh is going to do him the disservice of getting his ass fired. As a professional, I would have comments about your stated approach on constructive criticism, but 'not my circus not my monkeys'

Well, I guess it depends upon how you see things. I spent my professional life looking for patterns, and especially when it came to process development, trying to figure out where when and why things went sideways, a need not necessarily best served by setting out arbitrary intervals and counting the number of failed batches within them. That could lead you to decide "we had more failed batches since Rodomontade took over as supervisor - 8 vs. 4" - but failing to see that the number of failed batches actually spiked up at an earlier time interval and maybe we need to look at what changed right then. This is frankly where my point about it being somewhat ironic for someone to talk about manipulating data to make a point comes from. Here's what I see when I look at this "artwork": I see that there were some early "teething pains" with Josh, where he was turnover-prone during his rookie season and into his second season. After his 16th game, which happened to be September 29 2019 vs. NWE (4th game of his 2nd year), he really settled down and cleaned up the interceptions - UNTIL November 7, 2021, most of the way through his 4th season - that was the Jacksonville game. Beasley was playing on what we later learned to be cracked ribs from the previous week, our OL was atrocious against the Jags pass rush, and Josh was reckless with putting himself and the ball at risk. So looking at this as a process developer, I would say something changed for the better on September 29, 2019. We know from Josh that he had some hard discussions with Beane and with McDermott about changing how he played after that game. Then I would say something changed again on November 7, 2021 - WHILE DABOLL WAS STILL HERE. And I would start to look at what that might be. We overlook Nov and Dec of 2021 because Josh got his act together and played so splendidly in the playoffs. But I think in hindsight, that's where the pattern started. And I personally think Josh may have to do an exercise where he climbs a ladder and lets himself fall backwards a few dozen times, trusting some combinations of Kincaid, Sherfield, Knox and Hardy to catch him. A "thought exercise" might be prudent here.

I don't think Daboll/ no Daboll is the difference. - and actually in the post you are responding to above, it sounds like @GunnerBill agrees with that. Let me quote from the post you're responding to: "Now I will caveat that point with I don't think all of this on Dorsey or that Dorsey is terrible. I have some concerns over him but I don't think Monday was on him. I don't think that the majority of the blame for Josh's dip since the middle of last year belongs with Dorsey either......this isn't as simple as Daboll = good; Dorsey = bad. There is a lot more too it and I think there is some revisionist history going on here. " That summarizes the point I am trying to make. I think Josh has had good games where he was patient and took what the defense gave him under Dorsey, including a couple at the end of last season. I think Josh had impatient games where he did NOT take what the defense gave him, where he forced things and played like "Sugar High Josh", in the 2021 season under Daboll. I think where Josh really began to be "not the same QB" was starting from the 2021 Jacksonville game to the end of the regular 2021 season. We don't remember because he pulled himself together and played brilliantly in the playoffs (could not have played better) to end the season, but he had a truly horrible stretch of play in November and into December - again, under Daboll.

Oh, FFS(2). That's incredibly rude and dismissive. I gave you one pass for the condescending and dismissive "it isn't helping you much...watch the games" topped off with a political reference, but calling a graph of data "artwork" is above and beyond. As far as your question: I don't use the word "regression". I don't consider it meaningful in the context or meaning most people here (including your previous post) appear to use it. I already made the point "I think Dorsey and Allen should get a bit of a pass on the games where Josh was playing with a torn UCL last season", which would be (wait for it) every game after the 2nd half of the Green Bay game, until (perhaps) the last 3 games of the season where Josh said he could pretty well return to his previous throwing motion - but that takes time to re-train. I was hoping we could find a common point of reference to actually have a discussion, but I guess not.

OK, let's try this. Here is a chart of Josh Allen's INT (1 2 or 3) thrown, per game played (regular season or playoff), in numerical order. Without looking it up, pick the point where Dorsey took over. I'll hang up and watch. (click to get something you can see) You're making a valid point about examples and stats being able to be used to make any point, but you're using it somewhat ironically. Edit: Here's a chart of Josh Allen's turnovers (0,1,2,3,4) per game played, in case one wishes to advance the argument that looking at total turnovers, not just interceptions, presents a different picture. Same challenge: pick the game #, without looking it up, where Dorsey took over.

LOL. Kubiak started out being a bit of a Josh Allen skeptic, and has converted to a Josh Allen partisan. I'm sure there are aspects proving the truism "never as good as you think, never as bad as you think" when you watch fillm, and that we all give excessive mental weight to the bad plays vs. someone who is methodically grading every play. That's how many of us watch a preseason game and say "Kyle Allen sucked, Matt Barkley looked much better" while Ken Dorsey tells us "they actually graded out about the same" and many of us respond "by what grading rubric? and maybe you should fix it." But yeah. I actually suggested to @JoshBarnett last year (after a similar game got reviewed IMO very generously) that Kubiak had been abducted by space aliens and replaced by a Pod Person (in the Body Snatchers sense). I don't think my suggestion found favor. 😅

Oh, FFS. I watch the games. They tell me that at times under Daboll, Josh was playing like a wild man, throwing 3 INT per game and bailing out of the pocket/taking off or trying to hit the deep throw instead of taking what the D gave him. Remember the phrase "Sugar High Josh Allen" coined by Kyle Brandt? That nickname wasn't bestowed upon Josh because he was calm cool collected and taking what the defense gave him under Daboll, but now has become a different QB under Dorsey. 🙄 I think Dorsey and Allen should get a bit of a pass on the games where Josh was playing with a torn UCL last season and Josh explained that he had reverted to his college/1st 2 season overhand throwing motion that cost him accuracy, but perhaps YOU should watch the games - Josh had very good, calm and collected, taking what the offense gave him games against the Rams to open the season (though he did throw 2 picks), against KC, and IMO at the end of the season against Miami (not the playoff, the 2nd game) and NWE. The ratio of the good games to bad games may differ - time will tell. My point is, it's not that a totally different QB has emerged. It's that the same guy who was termed "Sugar High Josh Allen" under Daboll, and that we thought had learnt better, has shown up. It's not that Dorsey doesn't have short and intermediate options that are open schemed up for Josh; it's that he's not taking them - that's not just my opinion, it appears to be the consensus of everyone who puts out all-22 content. A person apparently can't win around here. If one just talks about what one sees with no examples, then it's "that's just your opinion, hit me with factsand examples". I give examples, and your response is the Ad Hominem "watch the games, you shouldn't spend so much time researching football, it's not helping you much". How about you put away your snark, and explain why, if Josh is now a different QB under Dorsey, he showed the same patterns before in the examples I gave? Why did he get that Kyle Brandt moniker? And Jesu, Man. Unless the rules have changed drastically, there is absolutely no reason to drag politics into this by using it as an analogy. Plenty of places to talk politics on the Internet, including the PPP forum. Talk Bills football here.

Facts When Blake Bortles threw for >4000 yards in 2015 in Jacksonville, Greg Olson was the offensive coordinator under Gus Bradley. Hackett was the QB coach, not dual OC and QB coach, and Doug Marrone was in there somewhere as "Assistant HC/Offensive line" It was Olson's 4th stint as OC, so I don't think he was believed to be a figurehead. I don't know too much about him, other than that he seemed to be well thought of during a stint with the Rams and Bulgar, just after the "Mad Mike" Martz era. But I don't think Hackett was the "ghost OC" for Olson, Olson wasn't a novice. Hackett DID take over in Jax about midway through the 2016 season after Marrone got Gus Bradley fired, but that's always an ambiguous question how much the mid-season replacement is responsible for and also how much Hackett was responsible for as OC vs. Marrone (didn't Marrone call the plays?). The Jags were 2-5 when Hackett took over as OC, and finished the season 3-13 so it's not like he "righted the ship" or anything. Again - nothing against Hackett but he was QB coach only and Greg Olson was OC when Bortles threw for 4428 yds and 35 passing TDs. So it's very much to his credit as a QB coach, but it's simply not on Hackett's resume as an OC It would be analogous to giving Dorsey credit as OC for Josh Allen's 2020 and 2021 season - he was QB coach, he deserves credit for that, but not credit as OC