Josh Allen looks on par with this year’s other rookie QBs

[Success]

There was some pre draft analysis of Allen that I’m too lazy to find that calculated he would have a 74% completion rate had he thrown - on average - as many short passes as the other 3 guys.

[thebandit27]

7 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

 

Yes, there is, as provided by hard data. NFL Accuracy is rarely improved significantly - Most QBs fail to improve college accuracy by 3 points. Most QBS with college completion percentage 56% or below are NFL busts. Many QBs below 59% college completion rates are busts. Most successful NFL QBs had college completion percentages above 59% and even more were very close to 60%.

Read critically, lol.

 

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

 

Thanks for proving my point.

Done. thanks.

 

Failure to read is no excuse.

 

Matthew Stafford had a college completion rate of 57% - 62% in the pros (+5%)

Matt Ryan was 59.9% - 65% in the pros (+5%)

Carson Palmer was 59.1% - 62% in the pros (+3%)

Drew Brees--the most accurate NFL passer of all time--was 61.1% - 67% in the pros (+6%)

Russell Wilson was 60.1%, and that's only because he had an ultra-efficient senior season of 72% passing; in his first 3 seasons as a starter, he was 57% - 64% in the pros (+4%)

 

 

Maybe you need to take a step back and consider what you're actually arguing here.  I know you haven't actually considered what I've said, since you continue to insist on an arbitrary line in the sand.

[Kelly the Dog]

2 minutes ago, Success said:

There was some pre draft analysis of Allen that I’m too lazy to find that calculated he would have a 74% completion rate had he thrown - on average - as many short passes as the other 3 guys.

I totally believe that. Not to mention that it was a jailbreak on half of his passes and he was running for his life there like he is here.

[Augie]

6 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Not to mention that completion percentage often does not have a lot to do with accuracy. I was a Tyrod fan (by default) but he was not an accurate QB. Many of his completions were caught but not accurate. And guys like Eli Manning would literally throw 5 WR screens in a game to OBJ which made him 5-5 in the stats, which makes your numbers skyrocket and nothing to do with accuracy. Capt Checkdown had good completion percentage because he checked down all the time. Allen doesn't check down,             doesn't throw many screens to WR or RB and is usually looking downfield to guys who are never wide open and rarely make great catches.  

 

After watching Darnold highlights from last week I was shocked to see how many times the WR caught the ball without a DB within 8 yards of them! THAT would make it easier to put up some numbers. I just caught the highlights, but I don’t see us with guys running free like that. 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

1 minute ago, Fred Clause said:

You need to pull Sammy’s rib out of your butt,  Allen had the least experience and was in the worst situation for learning in College. Everyone including draft experts said he was raw and needed a year or two to develop. And here you and other morons are calling him a bust after 5 games. He’s also in the worse position talent wise and has had the most difficult schedule. But hey your right, the kids toast...You would go far as a GM LOL . 

Again, sounds like excuses are being made for Allen's poor play. I'm not even asking the guy to be good or average. Just show me slightly below average and I'll be happy. I'm not at all okay with way below average which Allen is. Nobody should be. But I guess we can just make excuse after excuse. 

 

The only hope we have is we can our coach after the season and bring in a Reid, Sean Payton, Pederson, Shannhan, McVay type to take over. A guy that knows how to build an offense based on personnel and play design.

 

I was shocked as was just about everyone else at the turn around Goff had with a new coach. Maybe that can happen for Allen. But let's face it, odds are not great at all that it will happen. But at this point, McDermott has to go because it's the only way it will actually have a chance to happen. And that kind of kills me because McDermott has put one heck of a defense on the field. But a good QB trumps a good defense.

[Kelly the Dog]

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

After watching Darnold highlights from last week I was shocked to see how many times the WR caught the ball without a DB within 8 yards of them! THAT would make it easier to put up some numbers. I just caught the highlights, but I don’t see us with guys running free like that. 

Yeah, just a tad easier.

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, thebandit27 said:

 

 

Failure to read is no excuse.

 

Matthew Stafford had a college completion rate of 57% - 62% in the pros (+5%)

Matt Ryan was 59.9% - 65% in the pros (+5%)

Carson Palmer was 59.1% - 62% in the pros (+3%)

Drew Brees--the most accurate NFL passer of all time--was 61.1% - 67% in the pros (+6%)

Russell Wilson was 60.1%, and that's only because he had an ultra-efficient senior season of 72% passing; in his first 3 seasons as a starter, he was 57% - 64% in the pros (+4%)

 

 

Maybe you need to take a step back and consider what you're actually arguing here.  I know you haven't actually considered what I've said, since you continue to insist on an arbitrary line in the sand.

 

Jesus christ. you seem unwilling or incapable to use the most basic forms of logic. Again you have submitted examples that prove my point, and you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that if you find an exception to the rule, it doesn't mean that the rule is not valid. This is pretty basic stuff, man. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

It looks as if 26 stopped his rants 

 

 

to many to argue with I guess. 

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

 

Jesus christ. you seem unwilling or incapable to use the most basic forms of logic. Again you have submitted examples that prove my point, and you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that if you find an exception to the rule, it doesn't mean that the rule is not valid. This is pretty basic stuff, man. 

 

If you can find a half dozen exceptions without too much effort, maybe the “rule” is more of an “idea”? 

[thebandit27]

2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

 

Jesus christ. you seem unwilling or incapable to use the most basic forms of logic. Again you have submitted examples that prove my point, and you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that if you find an exception to the rule, it doesn't mean that the rule is not valid. This is pretty basic stuff, man. 

 

I don't really think I've said anything all that complicated to have you this lost in the discussion.

 

Take a breath, slow down, and consider what argument you're trying to make.  Furthermore, consider what I actually said in response.

 

Or don't...I won't lose sleep either way.

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

If you can find a half dozen exceptions without too much effort, maybe the “rule” is more of an “idea”? 

 

Ok, now I'm relieved...for a second there, Bull had me questioning whether the point was clear.

[Kelly the Dog]

Just now, Augie said:

 

If you can find a half dozen exceptions without too much effort, maybe the “rule” is more of an “idea”? 

Yep. And you may even have to slip "ill-conceived" between the " - and the i - in idea.

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, thebandit27 said:

 

I don't really think I've said anything all that complicated to have you this lost in the discussion.

 

Take a breath, slow down, and consider what argument you're trying to make.  Furthermore, consider what I actually said in response.

 

Or don't...I won't lose sleep either way.

 

Ok, now I'm relieved...for a second there, Bull had me questioning whether the point was clear.

This in't worth wasting time on. If you don't know that most != 3-5 out of hundreds you need to stop picking fights on the internet.

I have to get back to analyzing insights, as part of my job.

[oldmanfan]

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

This in't worth wasting time on. If you don't know that most != 3-5 out of hundreds you need to stop picking fights on the internet.

I have to get back to analyzing insights, as part of my job.

I hope you use better statistical analysis than used here.

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

I hope you use better statistical analysis than used here.

 

bank account checks out.

[thebandit27]

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

This in't worth wasting time on. If you don't know that most != 3-5 out of hundreds you need to stop picking fights on the internet.

I have to get back to analyzing insights, as part of my job.

 

3-5 current NFL starters out of 32 isn't exactly "3-5 out of hundreds", which is the point.

 

Also, I've heard that if you have to tell someone how smart/rich/successful you are, then maybe you should ask yourself why they can't see it without being told.

 

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

 

bank account checks out.

 

[GoBills808]

16 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

 

Failure to read is no excuse.

 

Matthew Stafford had a college completion rate of 57% - 62% in the pros (+5%)

Matt Ryan was 59.9% - 65% in the pros (+5%)

Carson Palmer was 59.1% - 62% in the pros (+3%)

Drew Brees--the most accurate NFL passer of all time--was 61.1% - 67% in the pros (+6%)

Russell Wilson was 60.1%, and that's only because he had an ultra-efficient senior season of 72% passing; in his first 3 seasons as a starter, he was 57% - 64% in the pros (+4%)

 

 

Maybe you need to take a step back and consider what you're actually arguing here.  I know you haven't actually considered what I've said, since you continue to insist on an arbitrary line in the sand.

And you're leaving out our very own Tuhrod Taylor...this particular argument's raison d'etre. 

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, thebandit27 said:

 

3-5 current NFL starters out of 32 isn't exactly "3-5 out of hundreds", which is the point.

 

Also, I've heard that if you have to tell someone how smart/rich/successful you are, then maybe you should ask yourself why they can't see it without being told.

 

 

 

I looked at over a hundred going back to 83, not 32 NFL starters. You cherry picked a small sample size that you thought proved your point and literally none of them were within the parameters I laid out. At least KellyTheDog found Kelly. You also chose to use strong final seasons as a knock against their stats for some reason, instead of the growth being the reason they were successful.

[Warcodered]

14 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

 

Jesus christ. you seem unwilling or incapable to use the most basic forms of logic. Again you have submitted examples that prove my point, and you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that if you find an exception to the rule, it doesn't mean that the rule is not valid. This is pretty basic stuff, man. 

Maybe you should clarify what your point is because maybe he doesn't know it though I'm starting to suspect it's more likely you don't know it.

[LABILLBACKER]

10 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

False! He's truthfully behind the curve of the others as expected.  

Yes he is. His flaws are obvious. And the numbers don't lie.

Qb Rating 

Darnold.   83.7

Rosen.     75.5

Mayfield  72.8

Allen.       61.8

....Darnold's wr unit are not much different than ours.

Edited October 16, 2018 by LABILLBACKER

[thebandit27]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

 

I looked at over a hundred going back to 83, not 32 NFL starters. You cherry picked a small sample size that you thought proved your point and literally none of them were within the parameters I laid out. At least KellyTheDog found Kelly. You also chose to use strong final seasons as a knock against their stats for some reason, instead of the growth being the reason they were successful.

 

Funny, I looked at current NFL QBs to see if any of them made dramatic improvements in their accuracy from college to the NFL, which is literally exactly what I said about 5 posts ago.

 

I give up...either you can follow the point or you can't (or won't, which is probably more likely since you don't read like someone that lacks logic).

 

Oh well, sometimes two people talk past each other without getting on the same page.  Maybe in the next topic.