Start Allen from Day 1/ QB competition

[Dr. Who]

3 hours ago, NewDayBills said:

Have an honest competition, best man wins, if that guy is Allen then start him, best players on the field.

Why though? If Allen wins the QB competition, why shouldn't he start?

Well, I think the post you are questioning presupposes that a bad offensive line and limited wr weapons likely will lead to whoever is qb getting pummelled by opposing defenses.  Do you want Josh Allen to be the next David Carr?  That's the worry about starting Allen, in addition to whatever learning curve is involved with regards to a late-blooming player who has not had elite coaching and evidently is not as polished coming out of college as some other top rookie qbs.

 

The counter would be that the value of learning by waiting and watching is overblown or does not pertain to the game today.  Peyton Manning suffered through a 3 - 13 first season and threw a ton of picks, but he turned out to be a HOF qb.  I rather imagine the naysayers would not be kind to Josh Allen if he had a similar first season.  But who cares?  What matters is what plan best allows Josh Allen to be the best qb long-term for the Buffalo Bills.  I am inclined to slow-roll the Josh Allen train.  Start of the season with tough road games does not seem optimum to me for a debut, but none of us know as much as the Bills' coaches who one hopes make a prudential decision.

[ghostwriter]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Well, I think the post you are questioning presupposes that a bad offensive line and limited wr weapons likely will lead to whoever is qb getting pummelled by opposing defenses.  Do you want Josh Allen to be the next David Carr?  That's the worry about starting Allen, in addition to whatever learning curve is involved with regards to a late-blooming player who has not had elite coaching and evidently is not as polished coming out of college as some other top rookie qbs.

 

The counter would be that the value of learning by waiting and watching is overblown or does not pertain to the game today.  Peyton Manning suffered through a 3 - 13 first season and threw a ton of picks, but he turned out to be a HOF qb.  I rather imagine the naysayers would not be kind to Josh Allen if he had a similar first season.  But who cares?  What matters is what plan best allows Josh Allen to be the best qb long-term for the Buffalo Bills.  I am inclined to slow-roll the Josh Allen train.  Start of the season with tough road games does not seem optimum to me for a debut, but none of us know as much as the Bills' coaches who one hopes make a prudential decision.

Great post! Think you pretty much covered everything, very well said my friend. I'm not so much worried about Allen's mechanics though, the footwork is easily corrected, his throwing motion and release is beautiful and that's the main thing. If Allen is head and shoulders better than McCarron and Peterman you don't sit him though because: a) His mechanic deficiencies are overblown. b) Starting experience will be valuable, better to get the growing pains out of the way. c) He gives us the best chance at getting to the playoffs. c) Beane and McD can't afford to coddle Allen, in an ideal world they could take their time and groom Allen by sitting him for a year, but that would postpone his growing pains down the road another year because nothing can replace starting experience.

[Dr. Who]

9 minutes ago, NewDayBills said:

Great post! Think you pretty much covered everything, very well said my friend. I'm not so much worried about Allen's mechanics though, the footwork is easily corrected, his throwing motion and release is beautiful and that's the main thing. If Allen is head and shoulders better than McCarron and Peterman you don't sit him though because: a) His mechanic deficiencies are overblown. b) Starting experience will be valuable, better to get the growing pains out of the way. c) He gives us the best chance at getting to the playoffs. c) Beane and McD can't afford to coddle Allen, in an ideal world they could take their time and groom Allen by sitting him for a year, but that would postpone his growing pains down the road another year because nothing can replace starting experience.

I think the "great post" comment very insightful .  Perhaps a reasonable compromise position would be to consider waiting till Week 5 to start Allen -- that way one avoids the baptism by fire involved in three tough road games at the top of the schedule. 

[BB@Shooter]

On 4/29/2018 at 4:33 PM, horned dogs said:

I'm torn on this, my belief is that Allen is going to look really good in training camp and preseason. It will be intoxicating watching him throw, making plays with his athleticism, and he just seems so charismatic. McBeane drafted him to be the leader and face of the franchise. Having said all that, any QB, especially one from a small school like Wyoming, would benefit from watching and learning for a time. It will be quite interesting to watch training camp develop for the QBs. I hope whatever they decide is in the best interest of his development, and I trust it will be.

 

I watched Andrew Dalton of TCU play against Wyoming a few times in college, and was mystified that he got drafted and is a starting qb in the NFL. At the time TCU, Utah, and BYU were in our conference with Boise State coming on board. So the competition was better than it is now. The coach of TCU was Patterson, and still is. They were known as a defensive team as Patterson ran simple schemes relying on a running game and a stout defense to win games. Much like Allen , Dalton was used as a qb that could run and then pass. For Allen, at least the 2017 team.

 

I never thought Dalton had what it took to play in the NFL, mostly based on the offense he ran ,and he wasn't required to throw passes that had much difficulty. The Mountain West was the old WAC , and it still put out some very good passing teams and quarterbacks through the years. It used to be shootouts every weekend with little defense being played. Before anyone says these two conferences in their time were no good, they usually had two top 25 teams in them most years.

 

I also got to see the Carr's out off Fresno State, Smith out of Utah, all the qb's out of BYU (Young, Wilson ,Nielson, Tatum, Gifford,  McMahon, the Detmers, Beck, Hall, Bosco , Sarkisian and Walsh)and other good quarterbacks play over the years. I  gagged a little in my mouth having to mention BYU quarterbacks,  as we hate BYU.

 

What I am trying to say is I have seen enough quarterbacks play in person over the years that I can judge qb talent to a degree. See which ones who play in a system, and which ones had to be that good just to get noticed. Dalton never impressed. He had all the tools under his disposal that he should have gotten looked at. There are a lot of qb's that have passed through the NFL that never got a real chance because they were brought in as filler material.  NFL teams had too much invested in the higher draft picks that they played a game of where they either passed around the known quarterbacks,  or drafted new ones. Not until in recent years where defenses have gotten so fast and specialized, have quarterbacks gone down with such an alarming rate. So teams have to go deeper in their benches and find more no name stars or at least starters. The NFL used to have mostly only known names playing qb. Now it is a big mixture. Either I can't keep up with college players, or qb play has gotten to the point of those camps turning out all types and numbers of quarterbacks that just need a break to play. 

 

Comparing Allen to Dalton and Smith coming out of college , Allen has skills neither one of those dreamed of having. And I can say that about most of the qb's I listed . Allen is not as refined as a lot of qb's,  but he has that "it" factor. Allen didn't prep at camps since he was a kid, he played baseball, basketball football, and worked. So his footwork is not as clean, he is still learning as he goes. And he had one ****ty OC and offense to run at Wyoming. I would have loved to see Darnold, Rosen, and Mayfield try and survive playing at Wyoming. Rosen wouldn't have made it out of fall camp before being hurt, little alone 2 games into the season. And Vigen would have had all three of them handing the ball off on 1st and 2nd down and expect them to bail him out because he ran off tackle two times in a row and the other team knows our offense better than Wyoming does. Now you know why Allen doesn't have the same number these other guys do. Allen got screwed by his own OC, but still loves the guy. Allen in my mind is such a better qb than Dalton was at this point in their careers,  that it would take a lot for Allen not to take the next step. Allen will fix things with the right coaching, and then watch out. How Allen looked in the  first quarter of the bowl game this year is the real Allen. I would expect that guy to step up.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 5/12/2018 at 7:21 AM, Kirby Jackson said:

This is his 4th NFL OC job AND he held the position at Alabama. I’m not sure how he can possibly be considered a rookie? I think that it’s fair to say “did this guy get better under Saban and Belichick?” I don’t think that it’s fair to pretend that he’s learning what the job entails.

 

Agreed.  And Daboll has to be well aware of that.    If he totally "screws the pooch" here, there will be no "newbie" excuses accepted.

[Kelly the Dog]

In Day One of rookie mini camp the reports were that Daboll was attached to Allen’s hip on every play, the way it should be, and everyone here thinks that’s a good idea. 

 

During the regular reason the OC is attached to the starting quarterbacks hip on virtually every play in practice - read McCarron - to prepare for the next opponent. The backup gets few reps and is an observer. 

 

If hes not the veterans think you’re not trying to win games. 

 

Why waste that coaching on AJ. 

 

Josh should have to beat McCarron out in practice, which he should, and start from game one, just so he gets the coaching he needs. 

[ColoradoBills]

13 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

I think the "great post" comment very insightful .  Perhaps a reasonable compromise position would be to consider waiting till Week 5 to start Allen -- that way one avoids the baptism by fire involved in three tough road games at the top of the schedule. 

 

I have posted this many times already.  Those first 4 games are QB killers.  Let AJ play those and go from there.

If Josh Allen is the Buffalo Bills QB for the next 15+ years, not starting those 4 games are not going to "stunt" his development.

[kota]

McD isn't stupid and won't have ownership or a GM pushing him to do something that he shouldn't.  Allen has to outperform the rest of the QB's on the roster to start.  It's really that simple. 

 

[Domdab99]

22 hours ago, Figster said:

Myself personally, the Bills are in somewhat of a rebuild mode, especially on O with new coaching/ system installation. The wise approach is to allow the more experienced McCarron take the bumps and bruises until the supporting cast /system is established and fully operational in my humble opinion. 

 

Josh Allen is Buffalo's future, I get that, and I'm as excited as the next guy to see him play. 

 

 

 

 

 

What the hell does "myself personally" mean? Do you think we think someone else is posting under your name and you have to clarify that yes, it is indeed YOU doing the posting? 

[Thurman#1]

On 5/12/2018 at 4:48 PM, transplantbillsfan said:

 

The rest of what's in this post here is based on the bolded opinion.

 

You point to Brady, Brees and Rodgers as proof that sitting works, while neglecting the immediate and sustained success (in terms of player and, in most cases, team as well) of QBs who started right away like Big Ben, Ryan, Flacco, Wilson, Luck (all of whom went to the playoffs right away and 3 won Super Bowls before their rookie contract expired), Wentz (on pace to be league MVP 2nd year after flashing his rookie year), Carr (fantastic his 2nd year... both team and personal after flashing his rookie season), Newton (in the playoffs by his 3rd year and in the Super Bowl and League MVP by his 5th), etc.

 

Maybe sitting Allen is best, maybe not, but sitting 1st round rookie QBs just overwhelmingly hasn't been happening for more than a decade, and there's been a lot of both individual and team success coming off those decisions to start these guys right off the bat, so saying that Allen's development would best be done in a way top QBs haven't been developed for a decade plus is awfully presumptuous.

 

 

Yes, I pointed specifically to the success of probably the three best QBs in football. To repeat, probably the three best QBs in football started by taking a year on the bench. Yeah, some guys have started right away and done pretty well. There are also a ton of guys you didn't mentiion who started right away and did ****ty. 

 

Most of those guys who started and did well - unlike Josh Allen - were not thought of as developmental guys before they were drafted. At most they were thought of as guys who might possibly need to sit, but that far understates what the consensus was on Allen. And plenty of Bills fans on here were arguing that we shouldn't pick Allen specifically because he'd need to spend a year or two on the bench. Now that he's ours most of those same posters have decided that that need has conveniently disappeared. 

 

Different guys have different needs. If a guy doesn't need development, fine, play him. But the point is that it's pretty much near-unanimous among non-Bills fans that Allen does need development and a lot of it.

 

You're right that sitting QBs hasn't been done much lately. But that's not a good reason it shouldn't be. 

 

It's not presumptuous to assume that sitting him is far and away the most likely way to maximize the guy. If anything it was the consensus before the draft. And yeah, now the consensus has changed in Buffalo where people want to open and drink their Christmas present bottle of wine at 7:00 a.m. on the 25th regardless that some wines really really need aging and that our vintage is widely considered to be one of those. That impatience should be completely ignored.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Thurman#1

[transplantbillsfan]

10 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yes, I pointed specifically to the success of probably the three best QBs in football. To repeat, probably the three best QBs in football started by taking a year on the bench. Yeah, some guys have started right away and done pretty well. There are also a ton of guys you didn't mentiion who started right away and did ****ty. 

 

Most of those guys who started and did well - unlike Josh Allen - were not thought of as developmental guys before they were drafted. At most they were thought of as guys who might possibly need to sit, but that far understates what the consensus was on Allen. And plenty of Bills fans on here were arguing that we shouldn't pick Allen specifically because he'd need to spend a year or two on the bench. Now that he's ours most of those same posters have decided that that need has conveniently disappeared. 

 

Different guys have different needs. If a guy doesn't need development, fine, play him. But the point is that it's pretty much near-unanimous among non-Bills fans that Allen does need development and a lot of it.

 

You're right that sitting QBs hasn't been done much lately. But that's not a good reason it shouldn't be. 

 

It's not presumptuous to assume that sitting him is far and away the most likely way to maximize the guy. If anything it was the consensus before the draft. And yeah, now the consensus has changed in Buffalo where people want to open and drink their Christmas present bottle of wine at 7:00 a.m. on the 25th regardless that some wines really really need aging and that our vintage is widely considered to be one of those. That impatience should be completely ignored.

 

The 3 best QBs in football at this moment sat on the bench, not in some altruistic effort to shield them from the horrors of the starting lineup, but because each one of them had a really solid vet QB in front of them in Bledsoe, Flutie and Favre. He'll, they might not have actually gotten any better sitting on the bench... you seem to think it's automatic that they did, but it's not. Maybe Brady and Brees have another Super Bowl each and Rodgers has 2 more if they all started from day 1. Maybe they don't. But the reason they sat had little to nothing to do with development (Brees might be the closest exception), but all to do with a significantly established pro bowl or borderline pro bowl caliber QB sitting in front of them.

 

We have AJ McCarron.

 

Maybe he proves to be obviously better than Allen as Bledsoe, Flutie, and Favre were at the time Brady, Brees and Rodgers sat on the bench, and if he does, he should start.

 

But if he doesn't, you start Allen, because he's better and gives the team a better chance to win.

[Thurman#1]

28 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

The 3 best QBs in football at this moment sat on the bench, not in some altruistic effort to shield them from the horrors of the starting lineup, but because each one of them had a really solid vet QB in front of them in Bledsoe, Flutie and Favre. He'll, they might not have actually gotten any better sitting on the bench... you seem to think it's automatic that they did, but it's not. Maybe Brady and Brees have another Super Bowl each and Rodgers has 2 more if they all started from day 1. Maybe they don't. But the reason they sat had little to nothing to do with development (Brees might be the closest exception), but all to do with a significantly established pro bowl or borderline pro bowl caliber QB sitting in front of them.

 

We have AJ McCarron.

 

Maybe he proves to be obviously better than Allen as Bledsoe, Flutie, and Favre were at the time Brady, Brees and Rodgers sat on the bench, and if he does, he should start.

 

But if he doesn't, you start Allen, because he's better and gives the team a better chance to win.

 

 

Yeah, they were vets, but solid? Brees sat on the bench behind the "really solid vet" Doug Flutie in a a season when Flutie was tearing the league up to the tune of 56.4% completions, 15 TDs and 18 INTs, a 6.6 YPA and a QB Rating of 72.0. How is that solid, or anything but crappy, really.

 

And while I liked Drew Bledsoe overall, he wasn't having success or being "really solid" in Brady's rookie year. 58.8% completions, 17 TDs and 13 INTs, a terrible 6.2 YPA and a 77.3 QB rating.

 

So that's not just not true. But more, even if it had been completely true, it would still have been beside the point. By far the most important thing that will happen at the Ralph this year is Josh Allen's improvement or lack thereof. San Diego won five games that year. Flutie was a place-holder, an absolute footnote to the fact that the building blocks were starting to fall in place behind Brees' facemask. Same with New England who also won five games in Brady's first year. The fact that they had decent QB play that year means nothing to New England fans then or now. They were building for the future and that was by far the most important thing that went on that year is that building, what was happening inside Brady's head and the heads of a bunch of other players figuring out how Belichick's system was supposed to be run. 

 

Yeah, they had vet QBs. We have one too. And in the long run the veterans play meant nothing. What meant something was what was happening inside the minds of Brees and Brady. 

 

Rodgers certainly did have solid vet play ahead of him. Which again was far less important in Green Bay than what was happening inside Aaron Rodgers.

 

Same here. Unless McCarron is better than we all think - not impossible - he's likely to be what Flutie and Bledsoe were in those years. Which will mean pretty much nothing to how quickly Allen learns.

 

How good the QBs ahead of a young guy are don't mean much to his development unless it means he starts playing early. Which if it's too early might be a very bad thing.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Thurman#1

[auburnbillsbacker]

The best way to learn and improve is to play and get a majority of the reps in practice.  Allen should start.  The team isn't very good so he might as well make his mistakes this year when it doesn't really matter.  

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

11 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

In Day One of rookie mini camp the reports were that Daboll was attached to Allen’s hip on every play, the way it should be, and everyone here thinks that’s a good idea. 

 

During the regular reason the OC is attached to the starting quarterbacks hip on virtually every play in practice - read McCarron - to prepare for the next opponent. The backup gets few reps and is an observer. 

 

If hes not the veterans think you’re not trying to win games. 

 

Why waste that coaching on AJ. 

 

Josh should have to beat McCarron out in practice, which he should, and start from game one, just so he gets the coaching he needs. 

the faster Josh learns the sooner Nate is gone?  

[Thurman#1]

7 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

In Day One of rookie mini camp the reports were that Daboll was attached to Allen’s hip on every play, the way it should be, and everyone here thinks that’s a good idea. 

 

During the regular reason the OC is attached to the starting quarterbacks hip on virtually every play in practice - read McCarron - to prepare for the next opponent. The backup gets few reps and is an observer. 

 

If hes not the veterans think you’re not trying to win games. 

 

Why waste that coaching on AJ. 

 

Josh should have to beat McCarron out in practice, which he should, and start from game one, just so he gets the coaching he needs. 

 

 

You're right that the OC will be right on McCarron's hip during the season if he's the starter. Luckily, Allen has two functional legs and freedom of movement and can plant himself right on the OC's other hip. And a lot of the coaching given a starter is less about how to play QB well than about how to specifically run this particular game plan and attack this particular defense. Which isn't a bad thing for a rookie to hear and try to process but it also shouldn't be the only thing he focuses on. 

 

Developmental guys need to work on more global QB skills like mechanics, dropbacks, how to watch film, how defenses work to stop offenses, how to get along with teammates, how to be a leader and so on ... rather than specifically how to defeat the Baltimore Ravens defense using the specific packages put together by the OC that day, which is what the starter tends to be spending all his time on.

 

It isn't a waste to coach AJ. It's not like they send Allen to a basement somewhere while they do so.

[ColoradoBills]

5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

You're right that the OC will be right on McCarron's hip during the season if he's the starter. Luckily, Allen has two functional legs and freedom of movement and can plant himself right on the OC's other hip. And a lot of the coaching given a starter is less about how to play QB well than about how to specifically run this particular game plan and attack this particular defense. Which isn't a bad thing for a rookie to hear and try to process but it also shouldn't be the only thing he focuses on. 

 

Developmental guys need to work on more global QB skills like mechanics, dropbacks, how to watch film, how defenses work to stop offenses, how to get along with teammates, how to be a leader and so on ... rather than specifically how to defeat the Baltimore Ravens defense using the specific packages put together by the OC that day, which is what the starter tends to be spending all his time on.

 

It isn't a waste to coach AJ. It's not like they send Allen to a basement somewhere while they do so.

 

Great post Thurman#1.  If I could of "liked" it more than once I would.

AJ has gone thru this for 4 years already.  Let's see what he's got while Josh Allen "get's his sea legs".

I also believe Dabol will be able to evaluate his offensive scheme better with AJ than with a rookie.

 

[transplantbillsfan]

FWIW... Vegas sure thinks Allen will be starting a lot of games this year.

 

Over/Under for games started by Allen is more than any of the other rookie QBs at 10 1/2 games.

 

[transplantbillsfan]

14 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yeah, they were vets, but solid? Brees sat on the bench behind the "really solid vet" Doug Flutie in a a season when Flutie was tearing the league up to the tune of 56.4% completions, 15 TDs and 18 INTs, a 6.6 YPA and a QB Rating of 72.0. How is that solid, or anything but crappy, really.

 

And while I liked Drew Bledsoe overall, he wasn't having success or being "really solid" in Brady's rookie year. 58.8% completions, 17 TDs and 13 INTs, a terrible 6.2 YPA and a 77.3 QB rating.

 

Some analysis by omission here.  Brees sat behind Flutie who had just been shafted for a year by the Bills by being 2nd string to Rob Johnson after being a Pro Bowler and NFL Comeback player in 1998.  The Bills cut Flutie and the Chargers brought him in as the clear starter because of what he had done with the Bills, establishing he was a solid NFL vet.  Also, the Chargers went 1-15 the year before Flutie and Brees got there.  And Flutie started out that season 5-2, and while in typical Flutie fashion, he wasn't lighting the world on fire (49.2% Completion %, 1,563 yards passing, 7 TDs, 3 INTs, 1 rushing TD) in his 1st 7 games, he was winning.

 

There was no reason to really consider putting Brees on the field while he was winning.  Then there was a 9 game slide, and it's not exactly the unreasonable or odd approach for the coach to stick with the guy who got the team to a good record to start the season to let him get the team out of the tailspin.

 

Bledsoe was the starter in New England.  Brady was a 6th round draft pick.  It's questionable, maybe even doubtful that Brady would have had a HOF career if Drew Bledsoe weren't knocked out of the game, forcing Brady into the game.  Bledsoe hadn't been great for a while at that point, but it's not like Brady was the heir apparent.

 

 

Quote

 

So that's not just not true. But more, even if it had been completely true, it would still have been beside the point. By far the most important thing that will happen at the Ralph this year is Josh Allen's improvement or lack thereof. San Diego won five games that year. Flutie was a place-holder, an absolute footnote to the fact that the building blocks were starting to fall in place behind Brees' facemask. Same with New England who also won five games in Brady's first year. The fact that they had decent QB play that year means nothing to New England fans then or now. They were building for the future and that was by far the most important thing that went on that year is that building, what was happening inside Brady's head and the heads of a bunch of other players figuring out how Belichick's system was supposed to be run. 

 

Yeah, they had vet QBs. We have one too. And in the long run the veterans play meant nothing. What meant something was what was happening inside the minds of Brees and Brady. 

 

Rodgers certainly did have solid vet play ahead of him. Which again was far less important in Green Bay than what was happening inside Aaron Rodgers.

 

Same here. Unless McCarron is better than we all think - not impossible - he's likely to be what Flutie and Bledsoe were in those years. Which will mean pretty much nothing to how quickly Allen learns.

 

How good the QBs ahead of a young guy are don't mean much to his development unless it means he starts playing early. Which if it's too early might be a very bad thing.

 

Again, you're entire thought process centers on the idea (not the fact, but the idea) that time on the bench is a more valuable learning tool than time on the field.

 

Even though Flutie, Bledsoe and Favre may not have had fantastic seasons or won Super Bowls while the young guy was on the bench, you seem to believe that the Head Coaches had the long game in their heads--that it wasn't about winning games so much as developing the QBs.

 

Whether they end up being right or wrong, a Head Coach is almost certainly going to start the guy who gives the team the best chance to win NOW, because he doesn't know if he'll have the job in 2, 3 or 4 years when the young guy has finally developed into what all your good planning promised he'd be.

 

Maybe it's best to sit Allen for the year.  Maybe it's not.  I'm sure if Allen seems like he needs to sit, McDermott will sit him, but it'll be because McCarron is the better QB at that time, not because Allen still has some stuff he needs to learn, despite being the better QB than McCarron or Peterman.

 

That's fine if you believe it'd be best for Allen to ride the bench.  No problem.  It might be.  It might not be.

 

But based on history of high 1st round draft picks coming to a team with no clearly, or even semi-clearly established vet QB, the 1st round draft pick starts multiple games in his 1st year, if not all of them.

 

Right now Vegas has Allen's over/under odds of games started this year at 10.5 games--more than any of the other 4 drafted 1st round QBs.  I think that's about right... and right now, I'd go over.

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by transplantbillsfan

[transplantbillsfan]

Why Chris Simms thinks Buffalo Bills QB Josh Allen could be rookie of the year

https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2018/05/why_chris_simms_thinks_buffalo_bills_qb_josh_allen_could_be_rookie_of_the_year.amp

 

He's only had a few practices, but Buffalo Bills quarterback Josh Allen is already generating some rookie of the year buzz.

 

Vegas was first to get in on the action, giving Allen the third best odds to win Offensive Rookie of the Year at plus-900. Only Cleveland Browns quarterback Baker Mayfield and New York Giants running back Saquon Barkley, who were drafted first and second overall, have better odds.

 

and

 

"I might get some push back here," Simms said. "There's people who think he's going to be a bust. I have tremendous confidence in this kid's talent, and I think he is going to be the starter from day one. This is a Buffalo Bills football team that was a good football team that I think has a good support system around him. They should be able to run the football. They're going to be able to protect him. Weapons on the outside are not great. But I do think within that offense and some of the things we talked about, their defense being good, I think he can have a good enough year statistically and wins wise to where he's in this conversation for rookie of the year."

Edited May 16, 2018 by transplantbillsfan

[Dr. Who]

5 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Why Chris Simms thinks Buffalo Bills QB Josh Allen could be rookie of the year

https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2018/05/why_chris_simms_thinks_buffalo_bills_qb_josh_allen_could_be_rookie_of_the_year.amp

 

He's only had a few practices, but Buffalo Bills quarterback Josh Allen is already generating some rookie of the year buzz.

 

Vegas was first to get in on the action, giving Allen the third best odds to win Offensive Rookie of the Year at plus-900. Only Cleveland Browns quarterback Baker Mayfield and New York Giants running back Saquon Barkley, who were drafted first and second overall, have better odds.

 

and

 

"I might get some push back here," Simms said. "There's people who think he's going to be a bust. I have tremendous confidence in this kid's talent, and I think he is going to be the starter from day one. This is a Buffalo Bills football team that was a good football team that I think has a good support system around him. They should be able to run the football. They're going to be able to protect him. Weapons on the outside are not great. But I do think within that offense and some of the things we talked about, their defense being good, I think he can have a good enough year statistically and wins wise to where he's in this conversation for rookie of the year."

I like the optimism and I am very bullish on Allen's future, but has Simms taken into account the quality of the oline?  They'll have to at least attain mediocrity for his prediction to be credible.