Why Josh Allen will demonstrate the flaw in the analytics approach to football

[Batman1876]

I like analytics and was against drafting Josh Allen.  The analytics were clear his poor statistical performance against week competition predicted a poor success rate.  His inaccuracy was sure to doom him at the next level.  I bought into it and wanted analytics darling Baker Mayfield.

 

But the problem with these types of statistical analysis is that it is hard to translate them to individual case by case scenarios. When you get to the individual player there are various idiosyncrasies of their story experience and their career that may produce a result that is statistically improbable on the whole but entirely likely on the individual case.  For instance if a player put together a great college carrier but they struggle with addiction, injury or laziness they individually are far more likely to fail. The prime example of this would be Ryan Leaf, analytics would say he was as likely to succeed as Joe Flacco was but Leaf's individual laziness, bad attitude and addiction issues meant that he was always going to fail.

 

In his limited preseason game time Allen is demonstrating the opposite of the example above, instead of showing how analytics overvalue some players he is showing how analytics can undervalue one. The issue at hand is coaching, Josh was under-coached throughout his time in football. He attended few QB camps went to a Small time High school, then a small time college. The overwhelming number of QB prospects, especially top prospects went to those QB camps, focused on football in highschool and went to a program far bigger than Wyoming. In other words the concept of having already received top flight coaching is inadvertently baked into the analytics. A player who has not received good coaching naturally has more to learn than a [player who has. 

 

Josh Allen has made huge strides (pun intended) when it comes to his footwork, which has improved his accuracy which was the prime concern about his game. Despite the fact that we are in preseason it is easy to see how his footwork is far better than before the off season. If this improvement continues Josh will be the biggest example yet of how the individual circumstances of a player can be missed by  statistical analysis.

[DCBills_OG]

Amen!!

[Fadingpain]

Speaking of analytics: so far, after 2 pre-season game performances, Josh Allen's numbers are pretty much the same as....

 

EJ Manuel.

 

 

[Buffalo716]

23 hours ago, Batman1876 said:

I like analytics and was against drafting Josh Allen.  The analytics were clear his poor statistical performance against week competition predicted a poor success rate.  His inaccuracy was sure to doom him at the next level.  I bought into it and wanted analytics darling Baker Mayfield.

 

But the problem with these types of statistical analysis is that it is hard to translate them to individual case by case scenarios. When you get to the individual player there are various idiosyncrasies of their story experience and their career that may produce a result that is statistically improbable on the whole but entirely likely on the individual case.  For instance if a player put together a great college carrier but they struggle with addiction, injury or laziness they individually are far more likely to fail. The prime example of this would be Ryan Leaf, analytics would say he was as likely to succeed as Joe Flacco was but Leaf's individual laziness, bad attitude and addiction issues meant that he was always going to fail.

 

In his limited preseason game time Allen is demonstrating the opposite of the example above, instead of showing how analytics overvalue some players he is showing how analytics can undervalue one. The issue at hand is coaching, Josh was under-coached throughout his time in football. He attended few QB camps went to a Small time High school, then a small time college. The overwhelming number of QB prospects, especially top prospects went to those QB camps, focused on football in highschool and went to a program far bigger than Wyoming. In other words the concept of having already received top flight coaching is inadvertently baked into the analytics. A player who has not received good coaching naturally has more to learn than a [player who has. 

 

Josh Allen has made huge strides (pun intended) when it comes to his footwork, which has improved his accuracy which was the prime concern about his game. Despite the fact that we are in preseason it is easy to see how his footwork is far better than before the off season. If this improvement continues Josh will be the biggest example yet of how the individual circumstances of a player can be missed by  statistical analysis.

 

Bohl at Wyoming is a great coach... it’s just not coaching

 

As many have said here for a long time, even before Allen, that accuracy does not = completion %

 

Allen had a bottom 15 line in FBS football, and a lot of very green receivers... I don’t think there are many QBs who would thrive behind his Oline... Brady would get killed

 

as for his footwork, it has continually gotten better. And you can attribute that to his work ethic and Jordan Palmer... Most FBS players, especially QBs do NOT have the time to fundamentally rework their mechanics in college 

 

College Coaches care about winning now, and a funky delivery (tebow), bad footwork (mahomes, Allen), long motion( Darnold) doesn’t hinder a college teams ability to win like in the pros... where Tebow’s awkward long wind up is a turnover waiting 

 

Josh Allen was using his spare time in Wyoming to learn the verbiage of the complex playbook and get in sync with his receivers 

 

His QB coach in college helped him learn to make reads, and run a pro offense... now his QB coach and QB guru are focusing on fundamentals which is going to bring it all together 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by Buffalo716

[Johnnycage46]

11 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

I like analytics and was against drafting Josh Allen.  The analytics were clear his poor statistical performance against week competition predicted a poor success rate.  His inaccuracy was sure to doom him at the next level.  I bought into it and wanted analytics darling Baker Mayfield.

 

But the problem with these types of statistical analysis is that it is hard to translate them to individual case by case scenarios. When you get to the individual player there are various idiosyncrasies of their story experience and their career that may produce a result that is statistically improbable on the whole but entirely likely on the individual case.  For instance if a player put together a great college carrier but they struggle with addiction, injury or laziness they individually are far more likely to fail. The prime example of this would be Ryan Leaf, analytics would say he was as likely to succeed as Joe Flacco was but Leaf's individual laziness, bad attitude and addiction issues meant that he was always going to fail.

 

In his limited preseason game time Allen is demonstrating the opposite of the example above, instead of showing how analytics overvalue some players he is showing how analytics can undervalue one. The issue at hand is coaching, Josh was under-coached throughout his time in football. He attended few QB camps went to a Small time High school, then a small time college. The overwhelming number of QB prospects, especially top prospects went to those QB camps, focused on football in highschool and went to a program far bigger than Wyoming. In other words the concept of having already received top flight coaching is inadvertently baked into the analytics. A player who has not received good coaching naturally has more to learn than a [player who has. 

 

Josh Allen has made huge strides (pun intended) when it comes to his footwork, which has improved his accuracy which was the prime concern about his game. Despite the fact that we are in preseason it is easy to see how his footwork is far better than before the off season. If this improvement continues Josh will be the biggest example yet of how the individual circumstances of a player can be missed by  statistical analysis.

 

I can get on board with this.  You see this a lot in everyday life.  Some people are intelligent, come from a good family, went to a good school, and appear on paper as though they have a bright future...but maybe they are smart...but lazy and just settle for an ordinary life.  I think analytics can be like this sometimes.  Its obviously not an exact comparison but I think analytics will probably always work GENERALLY...but as you said, some case-by-case scenarios don't fit within its parameters of analysis.

 

Here's to hoping this is the case with Josh Allen!

3 minutes ago, Fadingpain said:

Speaking of analytics: so far, after 2 pre-season game performances, Josh Allen's numbers are pretty much the same as....

 

EJ Manuel.

 

 

 

That may be true...from a numbers perspective...but stats only tell one part of the story.  Did a QB throw a pass 1 yard in the air and the receiver broke some tackles and went 30 yards...crediting the QB with a 30+ yard completion.  From watching Josh Allen thus far, I would say he is NOTHING like EJ Manuel.  You can compare any game's stats and try to say they are the same but the devil is in the details.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

Boll at Wyoming is a great coach... it’s just not coaching

 

As many have said here for a long time, even before Allen, that accuracy does not = completion %

 

Allen had a bottom 15 line in FBS football, and a lot of very green receivers... I don’t think there are many QBs who would thrive behind his Oline... Brady would get killed

 

as for his footwork, it has continually gotten better. And you can attribute that to his work ethic and Jordan Palmer... Most FBS players, especially QBs do NOT have the time to fundamentally rework their mechanics in college 

 

College Coaches care about winning now, and a funky delivery (tebow), bad footwork (mahomes, Allen), long motion( Darnold) doesn’t hinder a college teams ability to win like in the pros... where Tebow’s awkward long wind up is a turnover waiting 

 

Josh Allen was using his spare time in Wyoming to learn the verbiage of the complex playbook and get in sync with his receivers 

 

His QB coach in college helped him learn to make reads, and run a pro offense... now his QB coach and QB guru are focusing on fundamentals which is going to bring it all together 

 

 

 

 

 

...great job Coach....MUCH appreciated..........

[Andy1]

15 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

I like analytics and was against drafting Josh Allen.  The analytics were clear his poor statistical performance against week competition predicted a poor success rate.  His inaccuracy was sure to doom him at the next level.  I bought into it and wanted analytics darling Baker Mayfield.

 

But the problem with these types of statistical analysis is that it is hard to translate them to individual case by case scenarios. When you get to the individual player there are various idiosyncrasies of their story experience and their career that may produce a result that is statistically improbable on the whole but entirely likely on the individual case.  For instance if a player put together a great college carrier but they struggle with addiction, injury or laziness they individually are far more likely to fail. The prime example of this would be Ryan Leaf, analytics would say he was as likely to succeed as Joe Flacco was but Leaf's individual laziness, bad attitude and addiction issues meant that he was always going to fail.

 

In his limited preseason game time Allen is demonstrating the opposite of the example above, instead of showing how analytics overvalue some players he is showing how analytics can undervalue one. The issue at hand is coaching, Josh was under-coached throughout his time in football. He attended few QB camps went to a Small time High school, then a small time college. The overwhelming number of QB prospects, especially top prospects went to those QB camps, focused on football in highschool and went to a program far bigger than Wyoming. In other words the concept of having already received top flight coaching is inadvertently baked into the analytics. A player who has not received good coaching naturally has more to learn than a [player who has. 

 

Josh Allen has made huge strides (pun intended) when it comes to his footwork, which has improved his accuracy which was the prime concern about his game. Despite the fact that we are in preseason it is easy to see how his footwork is far better than before the off season. If this improvement continues Josh will be the biggest example yet of how the individual circumstances of a player can be missed by  statistical analysis.

 

If Josh continues to improve, I think your analysis is right on. Statistics describe or predict features of populations but within each population there is individual variation and outliers - on each side of the average. Hopefully JA will prove to be one of these outliers on the good side. Stats can accurately describe or predict most, but not all individuals. 

[Jay_Fixit]

I’ve literally been wrong twice in my life.

 

I hope Josh Allen makes it a third time. So far, it looks like it.

 

[The Wiz]

2 minutes ago, Jay_Fixit said:

I’ve literally been wrong twice in my life.

 

I hope Josh Allen makes it a third time. So far, it looks like it.

 

Does your usage of the word "literally" count as one of those times?

[SouthNYfan]

1 minute ago, Jay_Fixit said:

I’ve literally been wrong twice in my life.

 

I hope Josh Allen makes it a third time. So far, it looks like it.

 

 

I think there are a couple interesting things regarding Allen's analytics from college.

1) they don't take into account work ethic/future improvement, they only assume that he will continue to perform at the same (or worse) level once he moves to the NFL. This is technically true of most analytics for players, but in Allen's case, his baseline stats would not translate well to the NFL on paper, so for him to succeed, he would have to make large chunks of improvement in many areas. The analytics assume he won't, and therefore, will fail.

2) they don't take into account how long somebody has been playing football/quarterback. if I remember correctly, Allen only started playing organized football his Jr year of high school (I could be wrong). that means that he's only had what? 4-5 years of actual organized football under his belt? Contrast this to somebody like Rosen who's been playing football under top coaches for 10+ years. This also plays into #1, as if he has not been coached much/is very raw, then he should have a lot of room to grow/potential to grow and learn.

 

I hope you're going for strike 3 on Allen, Jay

[HappyDays]

31 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

I like analytics and was against drafting Josh Allen.  The analytics were clear his poor statistical performance against week competition predicted a poor success rate. 

 

The key word is "predicted." I work in finances and statistics is a hobby of mine. The biggest misconception people have about statistics is that they are making black and white predictions. Really they are assigning probabilities. So for example QBASE (the Football Outsiders analytics stat) gave Josh Allen a 62.7% chance of busting. That's a better than a 1 in 3 chance he makes it. A 1 in 3 chance is NOT that unlikely. If he succeeds that doesn't mean QBASE or whatever other analytics tool is complete bogus. If a model gives 10 QBs a 66% chance of busting and they ALL bust, that means the model is broken. The problem isn't analytics as a tool, the problem is how people interpret them.

Edited August 24, 2018 by HappyDays

[mannc]

I'm a big believer in analytics at the NFL level (especially with regard to gameday decision-making), but analytics based on college football statistics is highly problematic.  There is just too much variation in the schemes, schedules, talent level, coaching, etc, from team-to-team.  I think JA is going to demonstrate that.   

[Johnnycage46]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

The key word is "predicted." I work in finances and statistics is a hobby of mine. The biggest misconception people make about statistics is that they are making black and white predictions. Really they are assigning probabilities. So for example QBASE (the Football Outsiders stat) gave Josh Allen a 62.7% chance of busting. That's a better than a 1 in 3 chance he makes it. A 1 in 3 chance is NOT that unlikely. If he succeeds that doesn't mean QBASE or whatever other analytics tool is complete bogus. If a model gives 10 QBs a 66% chance of busting and they ALL bust, that means the model is broken. The problem isn't analytics as a tool, the problem is people.

 

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, Batman1876 said:

I like analytics and was against drafting Josh Allen.  The analytics were clear his poor statistical performance against week competition predicted a poor success rate.  His inaccuracy was sure to doom him at the next level.  I bought into it and wanted analytics darling Baker Mayfield.

 

But the problem with these types of statistical analysis is that it is hard to translate them to individual case by case scenarios. When you get to the individual player there are various idiosyncrasies of their story experience and their career that may produce a result that is statistically improbable on the whole but entirely likely on the individual case.  For instance if a player put together a great college carrier but they struggle with addiction, injury or laziness they individually are far more likely to fail. The prime example of this would be Ryan Leaf, analytics would say he was as likely to succeed as Joe Flacco was but Leaf's individual laziness, bad attitude and addiction issues meant that he was always going to fail.

 

In his limited preseason game time Allen is demonstrating the opposite of the example above, instead of showing how analytics overvalue some players he is showing how analytics can undervalue one. The issue at hand is coaching, Josh was under-coached throughout his time in football. He attended few QB camps went to a Small time High school, then a small time college. The overwhelming number of QB prospects, especially top prospects went to those QB camps, focused on football in highschool and went to a program far bigger than Wyoming. In other words the concept of having already received top flight coaching is inadvertently baked into the analytics. A player who has not received good coaching naturally has more to learn than a [player who has. 

 

Josh Allen has made huge strides (pun intended) when it comes to his footwork, which has improved his accuracy which was the prime concern about his game. Despite the fact that we are in preseason it is easy to see how his footwork is far better than before the off season. If this improvement continues Josh will be the biggest example yet of how the individual circumstances of a player can be missed by  statistical analysis.

 

Actually, I think you are wrong about what the analytics were on Josh and that Josh succeeding will actually do the opposite and PROVE the value of TRUE analytics and true SKILL to evaluate said analytics.  

 

You see, you are basing this off people who have literally NO SKILL in analyzing players.  What you are referencing is all stuff that came from mock draft people, media, weekend analysts, fans, etc.  The real people who do this for a living saw the true analytics of what he brought to the table making him a top 10 pick.  

 

If the narrative of the analytics was accurate, he would have had no consideration in the first round.  He was highly ranked by most teams, and several wanted to draft him, including Arizona over Rosen.  Media, mock drafters, rankers, etc...they use things like completion % and rarely analyze the underlying factors for it with any real insight, if even at all.  The professionals who know what they are doing do NOT leak their analytics to the public, all the information out there is from unskilled people working to get people to click on their site.  They dont do even 5% of the research and homework a team will do on a player, nor do they really have the skill in the first place.  Even guys like Kiper and McShay who do it all year have no idea what they are doing and are wrong about the majority of players they put info out on.  

 

So I don't think if Josh Allen succeeds it proves analytics are wrong, I think it will prove the opposite in that the analytics from the PROS are much higher and they have a wealth more knowledge on how to process that data to better analyze a player.  

Edited August 24, 2018 by Alphadawg7

[quinnearlysghost88]

34 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

I like analytics and was against drafting Josh Allen.  The analytics were clear his poor statistical performance against week competition predicted a poor success rate.  His inaccuracy was sure to doom him at the next level.  I bought into it and wanted analytics darling Baker Mayfield.

 

But the problem with these types of statistical analysis is that it is hard to translate them to individual case by case scenarios. When you get to the individual player there are various idiosyncrasies of their story experience and their career that may produce a result that is statistically improbable on the whole but entirely likely on the individual case.  For instance if a player put together a great college carrier but they struggle with addiction, injury or laziness they individually are far more likely to fail. The prime example of this would be Ryan Leaf, analytics would say he was as likely to succeed as Joe Flacco was but Leaf's individual laziness, bad attitude and addiction issues meant that he was always going to fail.

 

In his limited preseason game time Allen is demonstrating the opposite of the example above, instead of showing how analytics overvalue some players he is showing how analytics can undervalue one. The issue at hand is coaching, Josh was under-coached throughout his time in football. He attended few QB camps went to a Small time High school, then a small time college. The overwhelming number of QB prospects, especially top prospects went to those QB camps, focused on football in highschool and went to a program far bigger than Wyoming. In other words the concept of having already received top flight coaching is inadvertently baked into the analytics. A player who has not received good coaching naturally has more to learn than a [player who has. 

 

Josh Allen has made huge strides (pun intended) when it comes to his footwork, which has improved his accuracy which was the prime concern about his game. Despite the fact that we are in preseason it is easy to see how his footwork is far better than before the off season. If this improvement continues Josh will be the biggest example yet of how the individual circumstances of a player can be missed by  statistical analysis.

I agree with you, but go to NFL.com and look at the two Josh Allen videos that show every single preseason throw he made. He has a long road. A lot of great flashes, but still not close to being a winning QB just yet. Let's not crown him after two preseason games (one vs the 3s). 

[ddaryl]

analytics will get the data right 9 out of 10 times IMO.. and is still a very useful tool.. I'm sure analytics played a part in the data the bills used to justify Allen as the pick. Also analytics measures more than just stats.. Not sure if everyone understands that. There a plethora of ways to break down numbers that don't necessarily follow the raw stats.

 

but I think it goes without saying there is more than just data on every player.. How many 1st rd QB bust have there been...  How many successful QB's with sub 60% (within a few % points) have gone on to have successful QB careers over the  last 2 decades?...  Like you (the OP) said there are plenty of individual case by case scenarios that need to factor in.

 

SO the best scouts GM's coaches can use data and the eyeball test / film and more to form the full picture and to put players in the best spots to succeed.

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by ddaryl

[ToGoGo]

41 minutes ago, Fadingpain said:

Speaking of analytics: so far, after 2 pre-season game performances, Josh Allen's numbers are pretty much the same as....

 

EJ Manuel.

 

 

 

You must hate that we made the playoffs last year. I've been noticing your posts around this board along with a few other active accounts with a very similar tone. It would do the fanbase a lot of good for moderators to just ban you. I do not believe you are genuine in your negativity, rather you want to bring people down and incite emotion. 

[JMF2006]

44 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

The analytics were clear his poor statistical performance against week competition predicted a poor success rate.

 

They all play once a WEEK  

 

My thought on the situation is they were going to draft the best fit at QB for this team and I trust the process.(as long as it wasn't Lamaar(TT2) Jackson)

 

I really billieve that these guys are going to get us back to the top of the league.

 

Go Cornfed....light em up on Sunday.

 

BTW did everyone see SuperFoles get destroyed by the Browns D? the same D  Cornfed drove for scores on 3 times

Edited August 24, 2018 by JMF2006

[LABILLBACKER]

44 minutes ago, Fadingpain said:

Speaking of analytics: so far, after 2 pre-season game performances, Josh Allen's numbers are pretty much the same as....

 

EJ Manuel.

 

 

The only difference is EJ made absolutely no improvements in his footwork where Josh has already made big strides...

[ddaryl]

28 minutes ago, quinnearlysghost88 said:

I agree with you, but go to NFL.com and look at the two Josh Allen videos that show every single preseason throw he made. He has a long road. A lot of great flashes, but still not close to being a winning QB just yet. Let's not crown him after two preseason games (one vs the 3s). 

 

 

I kind of see a different player. I see a guy ahead of the curve already.. Impressive in his ball placement and pocket awareness, outside a few mistakes which any rookie is going to experience. However this weekend will be the big test of course

56 minutes ago, Fadingpain said:

Speaking of analytics: so far, after 2 pre-season game performances, Josh Allen's numbers are pretty much the same as....

 

EJ Manuel.

 

 

 

 

The eyeball test is much different with Allen.. EJ had decent stats but never looked good, never looked comfortable. Allen has decent stats but actually looks like he see the field and can dissect the D some and make adjustments when necessary.