[Vague Title] It continues... Josh Allen...

[CommonCents]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Sure, you can be supremely confident that your opinion, based on your examination of whatever you've studied, is correct and that the opinion of the Bills' coaches and scouting staff is wrong.   You are correct in your opinions sometime, and all coaches and scouting staffs are wrong some time.

 

But what about me, a third person, listening to you and listening to the Bills scouting staff.  What am I supposed to conclude?    What I'm going to do is trust the Bills' coaches and scouting staff.   Why?   Because each of them (not to mention all of them collectively) has more knowledge, more experience, more information available and more time to study than you do.   They are true experts in their field and you aren't; you're just a reasonably well-informed amateur.  They've seen everything you've seen, EVERYTHING, and they've considered it all.   They see the problems you see, and they've considered how to fix those problems.   They know better how to fix those problems, because they've been teaching football for 15 or 20 years and they know how to teach football.

 

Does that mean the experts are always right?  Of course not, we all know that.   But for me, a third party listening to you on the one hand and the Bills on the other, the only way I can conclude yours is the better opinion is to decide that I'm going to trust you simply because you're saying I should.   I choose to trust the experts.

 

I choose to trust these guys particularly because of my growing respect for how hard they work, for how much they study the details, for the work they put into what they do.  They maximize their chances of success by their work ethic.

 

Still, they may be wrong.   I get that.   But I'm not going to decide for myself that they are wrong because you say they are.   It's illogical.   

Yeeeeeeeeeeee. A neighbor who doesn’t work on Wall St. gives me random stock advice, a few days later that stock jumps up, OFC I never bought it, why would I trust him? A month later he mentions another stock, I still have my doubts and don’t buy it. Sure enough it jumps up again.

 

Time and time again this happens but I’m never gonna buy those stocks because my neighbor is a truck driver and not a stock broker.

 

Hope he enjoys all that money. 

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Even that was McD w/ Whaley, not Beane. This year was our new front office's first draft together.

Wait.   So we have ZERO data points to evaluate McBeane on, because they've only done one draft and we haven't seen yet how well they did on their picks.  

 

So I'm supposed to conclude what?   That they're picks are as bad as some guys who got fired for the picks they made?   Why would I conclude that?

[Stank_Nasty]

5 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Even that was McD w/ Whaley, not Beane. This year was our new front office's first draft together.

I would argue it was much more McD than Whaley. After all, isn’t that what we heard afterwards? So I’m gonna go ahead and lump it in with the new staff. 

[Sky Diver]

14 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Even that was McD w/ Whaley, not Beane. This year was our new front office's first draft together.

 

Whaley was a dead man walking. He was part of the old regime who probably had minimal input in the final decisions.

 

Even though Beane was hired after the draft, I have no reason to question his decision making at this point.

 

Why don't we hold off on the crusade agaiinst Allen until he actually gets a chance to play?

Edited July 25, 2018 by Sky Diver

[GunnerBill]

18 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

But what about me, a third person, listening to you and listening to the Bills scouting staff.  What am I supposed to conclude?   

 

I didn't dispute that point.  The point I specifically responded to and challenged was "have you ever met the Bills scouting staff? Why would you conclude that they are wrong." I have no problem with someone saying "I hear both sides and I am going to give the Bills the benefit of the doubt those guys have been doing it their whole careers." I have an issue with the intimation that people who believe they see something different are somehow unjustified in believing them to be wrong. 

 

EDIT: When I quote specific lines of posts and not whole posts it is because they are the bits I am specifically addressing. I was addressing that one specific line of your post. 

Edited July 25, 2018 by GunnerBill

[BuffaloHokie13]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Wait.   So we have ZERO data points to evaluate McBeane on, because they've only done one draft and we haven't seen yet how well they did on their picks.  

 

So I'm supposed to conclude what?   That they're picks are as bad as some guys who got fired for the picks they made?   Why would I conclude that?

I would conclude that there isn't a track record one way or the other, so people who spend time formulating their own opinions are simply checking themselves against the pros. I do think Beane may have filled in for one of Carolina's drafts. We could look at that I suppose?

5 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

I would argue it was much more McD than Whaley. After all, isn’t that what we heard afterwards? So I’m gonna go ahead and lump it in with the new staff. 

I would agree, just pointing out that we did not assemble any of the current front office until after that draft had completed.

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, Commonsense said:

Yeeeeeeeeeeee. A neighbor who doesn’t work on Wall St. gives me random stock advice, a few days later that stock jumps up, OFC I never bought it, why would I trust him? A month later he mentions another stock, I still have my doubts and don’t buy it. Sure enough it jumps up again.

 

Time and time again this happens but I’m never gonna buy those stocks because my neighbor is a truck driver and not a stock broker.

 

Hope he enjoys all that money. 

Of course.   And how many people have THAT neighbor as compared to the neighbor whose personal picks are consistently outperformed by quality professionals?    One out of 100.   I've worked around the investment field for a long time and one thing is obvious:  there are a lot more amateur losers than amateur winners.   A lot.  Why?   Because many of the amateur winners become professionals, that's why.   They become professionals because they can make more money doing it all day, every day because they're good at it.  

 

Can an amateur win the US Open golf tournament?   Sure.  There are some good amateurs around.  Is it likely?   No.  Why not?   Because if you're amateur good enough to win then US Open, you turn pro.   Why?  Because you can make more money as a pro than doing whatever else you're doing to earn a living.  

 

If some message board analyst's opinion was regularly better than the opinion of general managers and scouts, why wouldn't he go work in the NFL for a few hundred thousand bucks a year and a great pension?

 

Yes, it's true, some good amateurs don't turn pro, because they don't like the lifestyle, they don't need the money, whatever.   But the point is there are very few amateurs good enough to be pros, and many of them who are good enough DO become pros.   That means most of the amateurs, like you and me, are not as good as the pros.  

 

So when I'm listening to you and listening to the pros on the same subject, I have a bias in favor of the pros because you're almost certainly not as good at the job as they are.   You may be right about a particular opinion and the pros may be wrong, but from where I'm sitting, my head tells me that the odds that you're right and the pros are wrong aren't very good.   It's more likely they're right and you're wrong.  

[GunnerBill]

10 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

Bringing up 20 years worth of failures in an argument against the new staff that has already NAILED their 2017 pick and then broke the drought with massive roster turnover is really REALLY foolish IMO. 

 

I agree with this. I don't think there is something about working for the Bills that makes people predisposed to picking Aaron Maybin and EJ Manuel.  The new regime should not be judged on the basis of the failures of other regimes. But equally when you have an opinion on a move they made that is negative I don't see any problem with saying that. Doesn't make you less of a fan or a hater of the regime. I am a big McDermott fan (was even before we hired him) and I think Beane clearly has a plan and is aligned with the coach which is all good. That doesn't mean I have to love every move they make. 

[TheElectricCompany]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

You miss the point. The point is not that they may be wrong.  Even THEY know they might be wrong. 

 

The point is that YOU might be wrong and YOU behave like that's not possible. 

 

I hope that I am wrong. If he busts, we're in dire straits. 

My point is the same that hundreds have made in the months before the draft. From a statistical observation, the odds of him ever becoming an elite QB are extremely low.  

 

 

[C.Biscuit97]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

You miss the point. The point is not that they may be wrong.  Even THEY know they might be wrong. 

 

The point is that YOU might be wrong and YOU behave like that's not possible. 

 Not trying to stick up for Gunner but he is one of the most leveled headed posters on him and will gladly admit if he is wrong.  The people who aren’t fans of the Allen pick aren’t saying it because they hate the Bills.  It’s just the opposite.  But there is a ton of evidence, more than most 1st round qbs, that he is a guy with a higher ability to bust.  We would all rather be wrong and see Allen be the exception to the norm.

 

what blows my mind is how people just think because someone in the nfl, their opinion is gospel.  I played through college and had some great coaches.  I’ve also had total morons who would be lucky if they could get a physical job.  The nfl is a league built on nepotism and being friends with the right people. Daboll got his start because he was friends with Chris Polian (man, Chris killed it as Indy’s GM).  Same with the Jags GM and the Chargers.   Some of these people are awesome minds.  And some have their jobs because they had English class at Saint Francis with a former nfl GM’s son.

 

furthermore, it’s nearly impossible to question McDermott on defense.  He is a very good defensive coach.  But what has he done offensively to trust him on picking a franchise qb?

[Shaw66]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I didn't dispute that point.  The point I specifically responded to and challenged was "have you ever met the Bills scouting staff? Why would you conclude that they are wrong." I have no problem with someone saying "I hear both sides and I am going to give the Bills the benefit of the doubt those guys have been doing it their whole careers." I have an issue with the intimation that people who believe they see something different are somehow unjustified in believing them to be wrong. 

 

EDIT: When I quote specific lines of posts and not whole posts it is because they are the bits I am specifically addressing. I was addressing that one specific line of your post. 

Got it.   And, by the way, I love reading your stuff.   It's always well thought out.   

 

I really was talking to Electric Company and you jumped in.   

 

I wasn't saying, don't think I have said, that I think his or your opinion about the question is wrong.  What I've been saying is that from my perspective, there's not reason for me to reach the same conclusion you have.   

 

But when I'm your situation and reach a conclusion opposite from the conclusion the professionals have reached, I ask myself what it is that they are seeing that I'm not?  What's their thought process?   More often than not, I learn something about football by doing that, because I figure some things that they are considering that I am not.  

[Sky Diver]

An NFL QB career can last 15 years or more. If you take the long view. picking a guy because  of a perception that he is the most "pro-ready" doesn't make much sense to me.

[CommonCents]

10 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Of course.   And how many people have THAT neighbor as compared to the neighbor whose personal picks are consistently outperformed by quality professionals?    One out of 100.   I've worked around the investment field for a long time and one thing is obvious:  there are a lot more amateur losers than amateur winners.   A lot.  Why?   Because many of the amateur winners become professionals, that's why.   They become professionals because they can make more money doing it all day, every day because they're good at it.  

 

Can an amateur win the US Open golf tournament?   Sure.  There are some good amateurs around.  Is it likely?   No.  Why not?   Because if you're amateur good enough to win then US Open, you turn pro.   Why?  Because you can make more money as a pro than doing whatever else you're doing to earn a living.  

 

If some message board analyst's opinion was regularly better than the opinion of general managers and scouts, why wouldn't he go work in the NFL for a few hundred thousand bucks a year and a great pension?

 

Yes, it's true, some good amateurs don't turn pro, because they don't like the lifestyle, they don't need the money, whatever.   But the point is there are very few amateurs good enough to be pros, and many of them who are good enough DO become pros.   That means most of the amateurs, like you and me, are not as good as the pros.  

 

So when I'm listening to you and listening to the pros on the same subject, I have a bias in favor of the pros because you're almost certainly not as good at the job as they are.   You may be right about a particular opinion and the pros may be wrong, but from where I'm sitting, my head tells me that the odds that you're right and the pros are wrong aren't very good.   It's more likely they're right and you're wrong.  

I just think you can listen to the neighbor and your broker at the same time. Odds are that the proffesional is right? I would bet big bucks that any of these amateurs could have drafted better value than a select group of GMs. Nepotism a plenty and an imperfect evaluation process leaves plenty of room for an amateur to chime in with an opinion that is worth an ear. Just my two cents, I know some guys like to simplify things, why wouldn’t the guy doing the job be the most qualified guy for that job...welll....

Edited July 25, 2018 by Commonsense

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

If some message board analyst's opinion was regularly better than the opinion of general managers and scouts, why wouldn't he go work in the NFL for a few hundred thousand bucks a year and a great pension?

 

Even let's say for the sake of argument, that I thought I was good enough to work in the NFL - I don't by the way - the entry level jobs to scouting in the NFL do not pay a few hundred thousand bucks a year.  They pay poorly, require extraordinarily long hours, and living on the road.  Huge sacrifices that some people are just not willing to make.  I have huge respect for the people who do it and it takes enormous commitment. Make it to a Director of College Scouting position, or even a  General Manager and you will make the big bucks eventually.  The % of people who start out and never make it anywhere close to that though is very high.  

 

Even if I thought I was good enough, and even if I got a green card (which I almost certainly wouldn't because why couldn't that job be done by an American rather than me), then I would be taking a pretty large reduction in salary and quality of life to go and start at the bottom in NFL scouting.  I am already very well paid and have excellent pension provision.  I use me only as an example.  There will be countless other people out there, more talented than me and more experienced than me who will not go the scouting route in their career for exactly those reasons.     

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

But when I'm your situation and reach a conclusion opposite from the conclusion the professionals have reached, I ask myself what it is that they are seeing that I'm not?  What's their thought process?   More often than not, I learn something about football by doing that, because I figure some things that they are considering that I am not.  

 

Absolutely. And anyone who takes it in anyway seriously goes back and looks at players they got wrong (whether the pros also got them wrong - Shaq Lawson springs painfully to mind) or whether the pros got them right. You go and you look back at players you were really wrong about look at how they play in the league and try to work out why you were wrong. It was doing exactly that with Jared Goff last offseason that actually made me think "man, I'm not wrong this kid can play he was just in a horrible situation." but I didn't start that little project expecting to think that. I started it expecting to find out what I had missed or evaluated incorrectly.  

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Got it.   And, by the way, I love reading your stuff.   It's always well thought out.   

 

And without turning it into a love in, I always think the same about your posts Shaw. Agree or disagree with them I always enjoy your perspective. 

[stony]

56 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Ok I had my date wrong by a day.  Why  come here?  To discuss.  But discussions should have some logical framework, and to claim a kid won't make it before he has even set foot on the field is inherently illogical.

 

People keep throwing this completion percentage out there like it's manna from heaven.  But if you do the math if he completed something like 10 more passes, or say he had 10 less drops, he magically hits the 60% mark and butterflies and unicorns arrive.  It just gets ridiculous.

 

Let the kid get on the field and then see what he does.  Don't get all insane if he misses a pass or two in camp, don't get all insane if he looks like the second coming of Peyton with a pass or two in camp.

Take that crap to PPP!

[Shaw66]

22 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

 Not trying to stick up for Gunner but he is one of the most leveled headed posters on him and will gladly admit if he is wrong.  The people who aren’t fans of the Allen pick aren’t saying it because they hate the Bills.  It’s just the opposite.  But there is a ton of evidence, more than most 1st round qbs, that he is a guy with a higher ability to bust.  We would all rather be wrong and see Allen be the exception to the norm.

 

what blows my mind is how people just think because someone in the nfl, their opinion is gospel.  I played through college and had some great coaches.  I’ve also had total morons who would be lucky if they could get a physical job.  The nfl is a league built on nepotism and being friends with the right people. Daboll got his start because he was friends with Chris Polian (man, Chris killed it as Indy’s GM).  Same with the Jags GM and the Chargers.   Some of these people are awesome minds.  And some have their jobs because they had English class at Saint Francis with a former nfl GM’s son.

 

furthermore, it’s nearly impossible to question McDermott on defense.  He is a very good defensive coach.  But what has he done offensively to trust him on picking a franchise qb?

I know.  Gunner's really good. 

 

As you can tell from my posts, it's not that I have undying faith in this or any other stuff.   But until this staff shows me they don't know what they're doing, I have more reason to believe them than I have to believe posters who disagree with them.  Why?  Because they have knowledge, experience, access and time that the posters don't.   They've risen to the top of the profession by being better than all the other people who didn't rise.    

 

Unless Gunner posts his curriculum vitae explaining how he collected similar knowledge and how he's dedicated his adult life to this work and what his overall +/- percentage is on NFL decision making, I just don't have any reason to take his word over the experts.  

Edited July 25, 2018 by Shaw66

[TheElectricCompany]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

People keep throwing this completion percentage out there like it's manna from heaven.  But if you do the math if he completed something like 10 more passes, or say he had 10 less drops, he magically hits the 60% mark and butterflies and unicorns arrive.  It just gets ridiculous.

 

If you look at adjusted completion percentage (takes out drops, throwaways) , it will still lead you to the same reality.

He completes less passes than any other top prospect. 

[C.Biscuit97]

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I know.  Gunner's really good. 

 

As you can tell from my posts, it's not that I have undying faith in this or any other stuff.   But until this staff shows me they don't know what they're doing, I have more reason to believe them than I have to believe posters who disagree with them.  Why?  Because they have knowledge, experience, access and time that the posters don't.   They've risen to the top of the profession by being better than all the other people who didn't rise.    

 

Unless Gunner posts his curriculum vitae explaining how he collected similar knowledge and how he's dedicated his adult life to this work and what his overall =/- percentage is on NFL decision making, I just don't have any reason to take his word over the experts.  

That’s fair too.  So far, minus Dawkins, I’ve hated their offensive moves and completely trust them on defense.  I think that’s what you should expect when a defensive coach is essentially running the franchise.

 

 

[Shaw66]

9 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Even let's say for the sake of argument, that I thought I was good enough to work in the NFL - I don't by the way - the entry level jobs to scouting in the NFL do not pay a few hundred thousand bucks a year.  They pay poorly, require extraordinarily long hours, and living on the road.  Huge sacrifices that some people are just not willing to make.  I have huge respect for the people who do it and it takes enormous commitment. Make it to a Director of College Scouting position, or even a  General Manager and you will make the big bucks eventually.  The % of people who start out and never make it anywhere close to that though is very high.  

 

Even if I thought I was good enough, and even if I got a green card (which I almost certainly wouldn't because why couldn't that job be done by an American rather than me), then I would be taking a pretty large reduction in salary and quality of life to go and start at the bottom in NFL scouting.  I am already very well paid and have excellent pension provision.  I use me only as an example.  There will be countless other people out there, more talented than me and more experienced than me who will not go the scouting route in their career for exactly those reasons.     

Of course you're right about this, as to you.   I readily admit there are outliers, that the best people at any skill - investing, golf, evaluating pro football talent, are not always the professionals.   But of all the professionals, a high percentage of them are the best people at that skill, and of all the amateurs a very, very low percentage of them are among the best people.   So when I'm listening to an amateur and a professional, the odds are very much weighted toward the professional doing it well and the amateur not.   

 

So when an amateur is telling me Allen can't make it and professional is telling me he can, and when I know I don't know, I'm inclined to trust the professional.   Doesn't mean Allen is going to make, just like it doesn't mean my stock broker is giving me a winner.  It's just that the chances are pretty high that a random next door neighbor is NOT giving me a stock winner.  

[teef]

i'm just going to sit back, have a drink, and see how this all plays out.  that's why i'm going to live a lot longer than most of you.