PBF81

You said a lot here. I wouldn't say that I don't like him. I would say that I simply don't trust his circumstances after several decades of watching and evaluating PAC-10 QBs in transition to the NFL, measured against their expectations going into the Draft. IMO the USC ones have done worse than the collective average. I haven't poured a ton of resources into gathering that info though. LOL I lean on the info I cited up top. Who knows, maybe he'll be the next Mahomes. I wouldn't bet much on the notion that he'll ever be better than average. But then again, the general odds favor that so that's not really a bold prediction or anything. Not quite sure what you mean in that second sentence. But as to Allen in general, I've mentioned it before, but of all, as in every, QB in his draft, Allen had the worst track record against power-5 competition of all of them. Allen came into the NFL either without having read defenses well. I still don't think it's his forte`, but he's absolutely improved by miles on it. But he's the first QB that I'm aware of that has come into the NFL with that handicap, and overcome it to the extent that he has. Ever. IMO it's his intelligence, nothing else, that has allowed it to occur. He's had positive influences and the like, but it's his smarts that got him to this point. It was an uphill battle for him as it was. He didn't have to do that at Wyoming, he was a man among boys there. But that's also why he sucked vs. the few power-5 teams he played. Again, worse than any other QB in his draft. It's remarkable how he's transformed himself. As of now, today, well, we beat each other up enough in the forum over the perceived reasons there. LOL You know the arguments. I place little on Allen, or the receivers for that matter. You know where I place the lion's share of the blame there. I honestly don't know much about Burrow until his Senior season at LSU, like everyone else. My take after watching him that season and in the NCG was that he's for sure going to be great in the NFL. The only other QB I've thought that about in recent years is Lawrence. I rarely think that about a QB going in. He was as poised as they make 'em, and that was against a brutal defense in the biggest of games. As to Meyer, could be Meyer. But he's an "expert" as we like to call them here, right? Some, many "experts" even, simply aren't very good "experts," whether they're GMs, HCs, coordinators, etc. Simply because someone's in a role doesn't mean that they're average or above-average, much less excel at it. They're all "experts" and know more than anyone that isn't, ... until they're not. LOL And on that note, in a related context, it's interesting how when Saban had the NFL equivalent of 10 picks in the 1st-round in the NFL with his recruiting advantage, how great he and Alabama were. But the moment that that edge disipated, so did "how good he is." He's hardly at a disadvantge now, but the playing field's been leveled out quite a bit. Quite possible. I haven't analyzed it so I cannot comment intelligently on that. Nor does it interest me all that much. I will say, in light of our discussion, it's now 28-17 Utah with 1 Q remaining. Williams hasn't had all that great a game. 200 yards, 0 TDs. So let's see how he plays in this last Q, the type of environment he'll be facing in the NFL next year. Who knows, maybe he'll pitch for 150 and 2 TDs in the 4th Q. Let's see. Watching now ... Looks like it's going to come down to Williams' play.

OK, but at the same time I'm not going to ignore his performances against talent that's heading to the NFL. I don't know enough about USC to comment, but a quick glance reveals that they're 8th in the nation running the ball, Rushing Yards per Game, and that's not all that much because of Williams. So their O can't be that bad. Either way, like I said, everyone has their methods, you know what mine is. I realize that it's unique, but it's outperformed the others over the years. I'm quite content with it. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about theirs. He'll likely be the first QB off the board, without ownership, LOL, so I'm sure we'll be seeing how he's doing by this time next season. Maybe on NE.

Yeah, I realize that. Of everything currently known, to me the most important thing is how he plays against talent that's likely to make it to the NFL. That's pretty much my standard for most players. Tonight he's playing the Utes with the 5th ranked D, and he's not exactly lighting them up either. Everyone has their methods, that's mine. It's been pretty proven for me over the years.

No, of course it doesn't mean that a QB that goes to USC can't be really good, but besides Palmer none have been. And he was never premier. Maybe a couple of high end seasons, but otherwise not. I've not watched Williams, so I'm shooting from the hip here. My comments were general in nature, as you noticed. But I will say this, he's diminutive for a QB, listed at 6'1"/218 But here's the thing, of the five schools that that's beaten up on with gawdy stats, the best ranked D was ASU, at 90th. Other than that, the other four teams all rank 115th or worse, out of 133. So essentially among the bottom 10%. Against Arizona with the 39th ranked D he was good in passing, but not great. Against 11th ranked Notre Dame he was terrible. Against teams ranked better than 90th in D, only two, he's 37 of 62, 418, 2 TDs, 3 INTs. That's good for a 70.5 passer rating in the NFL. In short, it's nice that he can beat up on Colorado, Nevada, and San Jose St., but those aren't the caliber of players he'll be seeing in the NFL. I still wouldn't draft him. But that's me. I'm a horse of a different color. LOL I do think that those are the things that GMs need to look at however upon conducting their drafts. This ownership crap merely makes me feel good about my decision.

No, but given the affiliation, presumably the data's coming from the NFL. It's not so much the data, it's what people do with it.

I hear ya, but there's an enomous difference between USC and Wyoming, not really apples to apples there. USC's a power-5 school, Wyoming on the opposite end. No one's going to draft a Wyoming QB in the first 10 picks again, likely ever. I could have added more detail though, a bunch QBs were highly rated as draft prospects, that came from USC. Leinart, Marinovich, Palmer, Darnold. Not one, that I'm aware of, has ever gone on to do much in the NFL besides Palmer, who was very good but hardly great. As well, as you implied, I'm referring to the modern era, say the era of free-agency. I discount the PAC-10 because they're ranked way below the other four power-5 conferences in terms of defense, perennially. At least QBs in the SEC, Big-12, ACC, and Big Ten have faced defenses that are among the best in the NCAA on a regular basis. IMO that's important in evaluating a QB. Again, I'd avoid it if I were a GM. I'd rather take a bottom 1st-rounder pick for a QB on a team from one of the other four power-5 conference teams.

Bleu, or ranch?

I wouldn't draft a USC QB ever. They wouldn't even be on the first 20 picks of my 1st-round board, ever. Their QB production history given the matching hype is abysmal. The PAC-10 is a defensively bereft conference that makes QBs coming out of it rate much better than most are. Let other sucker teams draft them. Agree. You can extrapolate that to the historically high rated USC QBs as well.

Great stuff Einstein!!! Great thread prompting some great substantive discussion and posts!! Only. LOL Site looks robust as well. Was there anything further, like 2nd-reads and their targets, and 3rd-and-others kinda thing, or just first? I don't know to what extent teams track that stuff. It'd be an interesting view to see how it relates to the controversial discussions we've been having about Davis. i.e., Davis' 1st-read target rank, and thinking relative to other #2s. My initial thoughts on your post and the comments heretofore, are that Allen/Diggs/Davis are performing well. AKA the execution is there seemingly. So open question then; wouldn't the notion that we're executing, and given the backdrop of our two-game offensive woes, seem to indicate then that it is in fact the play-calling/design that's in question as to the primary reason for the low offensive outputs? (Semi-rhetorical) IDK, just throwing that out there. Most of us have our hunches and educated reasons for why we think or conversely do not think that. This is one of the best threads ever so far. BTW, there's also an excellent similar type of article re: the D linked on the front page, by Ryan O'Halloran. He puts together some nice stats as well that touch upon the issues with our rushing D. It sheds some light on some things, like that this D is likely made for and focuses on a hectic pass-rush, but, and not by design seemingly, at the expense of the rushing D.

Sounds like the "new Allen," we should know more in another 6 games or so. I would imagine that he's still not at steady-state yet. He's quite likely still figuring a lot of this out on his own. https://data.fantasypoints.com/

There's a good Ryan O'Halloran article about the D linked on today's front page. It adds some great info that supports this as well.

The last four games we've played them in, we've beaten them by an average score of 35-18. If we can't win this game by 10+ points after the two stinkers that we've played in the past two weeks, then there's more wrong than we realize. This might be the weakest Pats team since before Brady.

You're in a good mood. LOL

I would pose the same. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reconcile

There, you did reconcile it. LOL It wasn't difficult. Several thoughts there too however. Upon drafting Kincaid, and the quotes are there publicly, but we were told by McBeane that he would have a role this season and that it would be a signifiant one. I don't ever recall them saying, although maybe it's out there as I don't claim to read everything, that they were going to use him sparingly, the contrary is what I read, i.e., how much he'll help the offense in whatever manner they were planning on using him. But you also raise a great point in this discussion, namely that this "Sal C option" puts us as a major disadvantage with teams that do not deploy this what many consider to be idiotic option. In fact, that's one of the major and significant criticisms as to why we're not better, because we sit, in the "cheap years" of contracts, or underuse them perhaps, our draftees, and as they approach their rookie contract expiration dates. This, while other teams put them to use. That still doesn't address why Davis had 599 yards, 7 TDs, and 20 1st-Downs. Are they finding less use for Kincaid? IDK, but with your post as a backdrop, it definitely raises that question. As to the "Sal C option," we can can actually use queueing theory modeling to reveal the negative impact that has and the stress it therefore puts on the team in necessetating free agent acquisitions while tying up more and seemingly unnecessary cap dollars. Agree. And that was obviously the likely use for him as stated in the many draft profiles. In the questioning of coaching, I'll throw up the following. Of the first four TEs selected in the Draft, Kincaid having been the first, in trade-up fashion, two have more catches, neither had the receiving draft rep that Kincaid had/has. Kincaid: 19 targets, 17 catches, 118 yards, 6.9 Y/R, 0 TDs, 4 1Ds. LaPorta (taken 9 picks later): 42 targets, 29 catches, 325 yards, 11.2 Y/R, 3 TDs, 13 1Ds. Mayer (10 picks later): 11 targets, 8 catches, 116 yards, 114.5 Y/R, 0 TDs, 6 1Ds. Musgrave (17 picks later): 23 targets, 18 catches, 159 yards, 8.8 Y/R, 0 TDs, 5 1Ds. And Mayer and Musgrave have Garropolo and Love throwing to them, who will hardly ever be confused with Allen. Even Goff isn't as good as Allen in Detroit for LaPorta. But also, they're using Torrence, drafted after Kincaid. We could say, well that's because they need an OG badly. Don't we need a receiver that's got Kincaid's credentials badly too then. The short answer is yes, which once again points back to coaching. It's difficult not to notice that there are an awful lot of excuses and defenses being made, by players now as well, in favor of issues that for any other team would implicate coaching. At the end of the day, our offense is the most important part of this team. It's nice that McD has his little "Project-Defense" going on for seven seasons, but it's that same defense's play that has failed us in the playoffs, at least more notably than the offense. But we're not getting the most out of the offense, with Allen under center. That's a problem which to whom we attribute it can be debated as it is. I don't think we can lay Kincaid's lack of production at his feet for a failure to perform though.

We said that re: the Giants as well, who were playing with their backup QB. Or because our defense is such a hyper defense that is so fast-paced. The downside is that it obviously creates concern for whether or not they can keep that quasi-frenetic pace up. IMO that's a source for a lot of these injuries. I could very well be off though.

This is going to work itself out this season. By season's end the balance of belief in McD is going to shift in one direction or the other. It won't so much be predicated upon whether or not we win in whichever round, it will hinge entirely upon how prepared our team is to play, whether or not we put forth our best effort in any game, win or lose, and whether it's deemed that coaching has anything to do with a loss. i.e., if we end up playing the Chiefs, Jags, or Fins, but get outcoached with obvious play-calling blunders, and lose, and the offense obviously underperforming, then support for McD & Co. will shift one way. If we beat a wild card team like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, the Raiders or Colts but only barely, then it's also not going to be good and will depend upon the following games. If we play the Chiefs, Jags, or Fins, put up our best game in a hard-fought well-coached game, I see a shift towards support for McD & Co. Keep in mind though, that would be a playoff first for him. Either way, there's still 11 games remaining, a lot of different things could happen, nothing's going to change, nor should, at this point. Again, it'll work itself out, not everyone's going to be happy when it does. LOL Great point!

Well OK, good morning to you as well. That's not the point. the point is that either someone f'd up royally in the assessment of Kincaid, which based upon virtually all of the draft profiles from reputable draft analysts is far from the case, or it's a coaching/use issue. There really isn't another option in this case. If it's the former, then it is what it is. If it's the latter, then there's a very serious disconnect somewhere, particularly since we can ask the same questions re: a bunch of former 1st and 2nd round draft picks. The question was both serious and sincere and I was hoping for a more intelligent answer from you. I'll enter into the fray here between you and Bill from NYC here as well. Here's the thing about that statement by you, his (McD's) guys are going to defend him. It's also not a reach to suggest that if they didn't, and he found out about it, they may no longer have employment there. Much like Allen's defending Dorsey in the media now, saying that those critical of Dorsey (et al) aren't privy to the discussions. I mean given the hints that Dorsey is Allen's choice, that also shouldn't be anything approaching an epiphany. And that's all fine and dandy, but it's hardly questionable that they went into the Jax game flat, for example. Or that we massively underachieved vs the Giants. These, and other things, are blatant, not anything that one has to "be in the room" regarding. I mean even the announcers are picking on certain plays. No need to "be in the room" to notice those glaring, and many are glaring, issues. If I can add, the biggest thing that Allen seems to have taken from McD is parroting [his] line, "I need to be/play better." That's starting to sound like a broken record. McD's press nonsense as well. Anytime there's a "broken record," it' s safe assumption that it's the DJ that's at least largely at fault. We've seen very little besides the most superficial of accountability here on McD's watch if we want to be honest, at least insofar as the media goes. I will even suggest that if their play is an issue, even sporadically, if those tacks with the media continue, it's not doing them any favors. Ergo, it's a real reach that "his guys" are going to say anything different to outsiders. And look, I know that you disagree here, just throwing these things out in the interests of good and informative debate, but they are relevant. You know that I'm of the opinion that McD is a control freak, and I'll site your own statement above, McDermott weilds the most power in the organisation, as at least a reasonable basis for that take. And yes, before you get all upset, I realize that's not what you were saying, I get it. But nonetheless, it's also not a large leap from that, your, statement, to my premise. And as Bill and many other point out, this team's MO, let's call it "The Process" since "The Process" has never officially been defined, leans very very heavily to McD's strengths, but more relevantly, very very much away from his weaknesses, namely the offense. Whether that's wise given the generational talent that we have at QB is certainly within the realm of honest debate and discussion.

So given all that, and keeping in mind that even those relating that info to you are going to have their biases, but that aside, how do you reconcile the enormous gap between Kincaid's obvious capabilities, and his lack of proper use, which has led to massive underachievement by him, and mid-late day-3 performance on pace for 334 yards, 0 TDS, and notable less than one 1st-down per game? If he were on Jax, Cincy, KC, Philly or perhaps a handful of other teams, how do you think he'd be doing? ... Generally speaking contrasted with here. I'll add some more context; In Davis' rookie year, he logged 35 catches, 599 yards, 7 TDs, and 20 1st-Downs, as a 4th-round selection that didn't have Kincaid's route-running ability, hands, etc. I didn't use Davis to try to bolster Davis, the opposite actually. But that is definitely an enigma of sorts.

If he takes the team into the playoffs and loses, but plays our best game, coaching included, and is simply beaten by a better team that outplayed us all things being equal otherwise, that's one thing. Granted, it would be a first. But if we produce another stinker like the Cincy game, get out-coached, allow an inferior team to beat us because we didn't bring our best, or the team showed up unprepared, then that's another. In the case if the latter it should take care of itself. These discussions both here and in the media would become a lot more lopsided. Right now it already appears that we were off to another fast start and have already slowed down after expending a lot of emotional capital on our first four games. Floyd for example is on pace for 18 sacks. What fool thinks that that's really going to happen. I'm thinking that 10-7 and a wild-card spot would actually help us come playoff time, not be a detriment. Let's see how things play out and see where things stand when the music stops. Who knows, maybe it'll be 7 a.m. and the party downtown just ended. 😎

Also, it's in how we lose in the playoffs. Giving the game away (13 Seconds), showing up unprepared, having the #1/2 defense during the regular season but playing like a bottom tier D in the playoffs, major inconsistencies on offense, these are not indications that a coach needs a few more seasons. It was the same in the 90s, Levy held us back at that level. If Parcells, Johnson, or Gibbs had been our coach, we'd have our Lombardi by now. SMH, I still recall the last Super Bowl, we were up 13-6 at the half. The field reporter related the info that Johnson was in the locker room throwing chairs and swearing up a storm, and that Levy was reading Hemingway quotes. Whatever happened, 24-0 Dallas in the second half.

A good possibility. Their schedule is the easiest of ours, Miami's, and KC's.

We'll see how this season progresses. But there's a strong argument for having an "all world" or at least highly experienced OC for Allen and the offense at this point. In terms of coaching, the offense has seemingly been the red-headed stepchild of the team on McD's watch. This season will reveal much, but McD's taking risks with his tenure as a HC if he doesn't address the situation if it doesn't correct itself. One of his strengths coming out is route-running. So once we start blaming the players, and a rookie who was arguably the strongest route-running prospect among all TEs in the draft, and a strong candidate to make an impact as a rookie, then those fingers doing the pointing begin to go limp. Agree

No doubt. We obviously disagree as to the extent that coaching is implicated. As sunshynman just said, there are far too many times where multiple receivers are in the same exact spot or other such issues, that have nothing to do with the WR-ing talent. Among other issues that are not directly related to the talent. Also, If they cannot take a proven good-hands and excellent route-running talent like Kincaid, and get a little bit more than what's presently pacing for 334 yards, 0 TDs, a dozen 1st-Downs, all on fewer than 7 Yards-per-Catch, it's a tough battle claiming that coaching isn't the biggest reason for that ridiculous output. I think most people here will be stunned if Kincaid doesn't put up at least what Knox did last season. And at the very minimum then, start holding Beane accountable for drafts that force us to go the free-agency route.

Yes, I understand that's what a lot of peoples' thoughts are. Mine are to consider a number of other factors before rushing into a decision like that, and file under be careful what you wish for, you may get it. That's not to say that Samuel might not be better. It is to say that IMO it's a bit more complicated than that for reasons that I've already hinted at or outright mentioned. "My stats", really simply the stats, were on a per-game basis over the course of a career. 5th season for Samuel, 4th for Davis. So not quite sure why you say that. Gabe makes more big plays, that much should be obvious. I have a hunch that if we did get a "WR2" here that did run more routes, etc., but didn't put up those big plays, everyone would be all over him too for not making enough big plays. I would argue the "more weapons" for SF although that's not particularly relevant. What is relevant is how would Samuel be in our offense? The short answer is that we don't know. Keep in mind, we can't use Kincaid effectively. What makes you think that this staff is going to use a WR like Samuel to his capabilities? (which are different than Gabe's, which shouldn't get lost in the discussion) I'm far from convinced that we would reap the full benefits of a WR like Samuel opposite Diggs. Consider Hines last season. He was among the best receiving RBs in the league when he was in Indy. Here, ... nada. They talked about it as they traded for him, but never got it done. It's hardly that we didn't need it or couldn't have used it. And how would Samuel do on a team that doesn't typically rely on a pocket, like SF does, and with the lesser running game that you mention? A lot of people put blame on Gabe's shoulders, but it really should be on the coaching staff, but they cannot bring themselves to see that. Again, there's some cart/horse stuff involved here.