Buffalo News: PFF Breaks Down Josh Allen's Accuracy "Issue"

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Trubisky has really given me some hope. He's far and the way the closest comparison to Allen in terms of recent draftees. Would love to see that kind of second year jump for JA. Nagy has obviously made a world of difference in Chicago, but hey, Daboll is a hot HC candidate so who knows? My biggest fear is another Ryan Tannehill. A guy who lingers for years because he does just enough right to make people think he's the guy. Time will tell.

 

Jared Goff would be closer.

[LSHMEAB]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Jared Goff would be closer.

How so? I'm talking about the player, not the circumstance. Allen has virtually nothing in common with Goff. Goff is a pocket passer with nice touch and accuracy lacking a huge arm and mobility. Trubisky and Allen are both big, mobile QB's who's main issues are accuracy and touch.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2018 by LSHMEAB

[jrober38]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

I thought your response to what appeared to me a rather thoughtful post was pithy and dismissive. It's just easy to respond to a long post with a brief pejorative. Possibly you didn't intend that. I think Allen's performance is not properly guaged by statistics. I think that was the main point of the other fella's post. I'm personally not bothered by "bottom-dwelling" because I believe much of that is due to surrounding talent and a rookie qb who is still learning to read NFL defenses. No doubt, Allen has to improve. I think it is likely he will and you don't. I am not an analytics guy and maybe your pessimism will prove correct. I think the team believes in Allen. I think they think he's going to be a good one and probaby have a better feel than what the numbers are saying right now.

 

Giving the team the benefit of the doubt doesn't make much sense when you consider how highly they thought of Nate Peterman in the past, benching Tyrod so he could play and naming him the week 1 starter this year. 

 

Most rookie QBs don't get significantly better, so being young doesn't mean much. Over 50% of 1st round QBs bust, and when you take away the elite prospects who went #1 overall, and focus on the guys who go 2-32 overall, that bust rate balloons to over 70%. 

 

It's really hard to find a QB. Usually the guys who make it don't look like Josh Allen has looked so far, struggling with most aspects of throwing the football. Most guys who make it play really well early on, with only a few exceptions over the past 20 years. 

[PlayoffsPlease]

The main statistical truth that is not factored in here, is that Josh Allen is the largest percentage of his teams offense of any QB in the league (for the games he played in).  The stress and duress that puts a player under (let alone a rookie) is tremendous.  He has responded fairly well to that.   This does not change the other statistics, but it provides important context. 

[jrober38]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Jared Goff would be closer.

 

Goff and Allen are almost polar opposites in terms of pros and cons as prospects. 

 

Allen is the big, strong, raw prospect who wasn't a very good passer in college.

 

Goff was the thin, lanky, polished passer who dominated the Pac-12. 

 

They're nothing alike as players. 

[Doc]

26 minutes ago, TaskersGhost said:

Thanks!

 

Maybe, but consider, Rosen, Darnold, and Jackson don't have significantly better rushing games and their numbers in that regard are much higher.  

 

Bills 1,235 other than Allen and Peterman 

Ravens 1,495 other than Jackson and Flacco

Jets 1,376 other than Darnold and McCown

Arizona 1,112 other than Rosen and Bradford 

 

Again, not to compare Allen with others in his draft-class, it's not a race among them.  All can succeed, all can fail, and anything in between.  The success of one is not hinged, in any way, shape, or form, to the others.  

 

Point is, and notwithstanding any potential reasons, Allen's performance in that way absolutely must improve or he's simply not the one.  And traditionally/historically, that's a very difficult thing to correct for coaches because it doesn't involve technique or method that a coach can see and attempt to right, rather it's a mental thing that's difficult for a coach to see, namely what a player is actually thinking.  So most of this if not all of it is on Allen.  Again, this is also something he was not good at and criticized for at Wyoming.  Expecting him to be able to correct this in the NFL, and when he was so poor at it against collegiate competition that made it to the NFL, is a tall order.  

 

We will know more by midseason next year.  

 

What are the YPC when you remove the QB's rushes?  That's a far better metric of how good a team's running game is, not just total yards, which is dependent on number of attempts.

[Dr. Who]

2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Giving the team the benefit of the doubt doesn't make much sense when you consider how highly they thought of Nate Peterman in the past, benching Tyrod so he could play and naming him the week 1 starter this year. 

 

Most rookie QBs don't get significantly better, so being young doesn't mean much. Over 50% of 1st round QBs bust, and when you take away the elite prospects who went #1 overall, and focus on the guys who go 2-32 overall, that bust rate balloons to over 70%. 

 

It's really hard to find a QB. Usually the guys who make it don't look like Josh Allen has looked so far, struggling with most aspects of throwing the football. Most guys who make it play really well early on, with only a few exceptions over the past 20 years. 

Yeah, when I say they I really mean the players and not the coaches who I am rather skeptical of with regards to evaluation of offensive talent. You are an analytics guy, hated the pick, and have mostly remained pessimistic through the year. I am seeing the same performance and perceiving hopeful signs of light. Our criteria and sensibility are just different. I'm guessing next year will clarify any ambiguity.

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

How so? I'm talking about the player, not the circumstance or the first year statistics. 

 

The player is the topic of discussion.

 

2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

Goff and Allen are almost polar opposites in terms of pros and cons as prospects. 

 

Allen is the big, strong, raw prospect who wasn't a very good passer in college.

 

Goff was the thin, lanky, polished passer who dominated the Pac-12. 

 

They're nothing alike as players. 

 

Yes going by statistics.  Goff was far more polished in college.  His rookie stats were abysmal though because he had a poor supporting cast around him and a bad OC.

[LSHMEAB]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

 

Yes going by statistics.  Goff was far more polished in college.  His rookie stats were abysmal though because he had a poor supporting cast around him and a bad OC.

We may have a bad supporting cast, but our OC is apparently a hot commodity around the league.

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

We may have a bad supporting cast, but our OC is apparently a hot commodity around the league.

 

LOL!  I seriously doubt that.

[dakrider]

Some guys are putting way to much emphasis on statistics.   Looking at QB Comp. Pct., Matt Stafford 66%, Matt Ryan 69%, Eli Manning 66%, Ryan Fitzpatrick 67%, Blake Bortles 61%,  Marcus Mariota 69% Ryan Tannehill 65%, and Deshaun Watson 68%.  Several of these QB's are on teams that aren't any better than the Bills.   

You got to see Stafford,  Mariota, Bortles, Watson and Tannehill.  Did any of these guys really look better in those games than Allen?   No, they didn't really look better than Allen to me in those 4 games.  Bills beat Detroit and Tenn, they very well could have beat Houston had Allen not got hurt (Peterman pick-6 ended game).   They also very well could have beat Miami.   These were all games with the Rookie Josh Allen.   Several of these QB's have stats that compare well with the top QB's in the league but thats not winning games for them. 

 

The only other thing that I want to bring up is go look at how uncompetitive the Bills were in their first 9 games (Allen played in about half those games).  2-7 record and many lopsided losses.  The last 5 games the Bills have been much more competitive and very well could be 4-1 in those games.  Even the NE game the Bills had their chances but mostly just made to many big mistakes on offense.   This shows me that stats are just that - stats.  Many of them do not correspond to winning and losing.  Most of the top QB's on the best teams do have good stats too.  But most of those teams also have the necessary ingredients to enable those QB's to win.  
Being able to make big plays is a very important aspect that the stats don't show.  And that's something Allen has shown he can do.  All Allen needs to succeed and win is 1-2 good receivers and TE, and an improved Bills running game.  
 

[jrober38]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Yeah, when I say they I really mean the players and not the coaches who I am rather skeptical of with regards to evaluation of offensive talent. You are an analytics guy, hated the pick, and have mostly remained pessimistic through the year. I am seeing the same performance and perceiving hopeful signs of light. Our criteria and sensibility are just different. I'm guessing next year will clarify any ambiguity.

 

My concern is currently based around the fact that Allen is the same guy now as he was in college.  

 

He makes wow throws, but misses easy ones. He has a huge arm, but he regularly misses wide open deep targets. He looks to run to quickly and doesn't read the field quickly. His accuracy and ball placement are suspect a lot of the time, and ultimately he struggles to complete more than half his throws on a weekly basis. Overall his efficiency as a passer is terrible, as it was in college. 

 

He needs to take a massive step forward next year. If his QB Rating isn't above 90 with a completion percentage around about 60% or higher, I'm moving on to someone else in 2020 when there should be a bunch of really good QBs in the draft. 

[BananaB]

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

Goff and Allen are almost polar opposites in terms of pros and cons as prospects. 

 

Allen is the big, strong, raw prospect who wasn't a very good passer in college.

 

Goff was the thin, lanky, polished passer who dominated the Pac-12. 

 

They're nothing alike as players. 

 

But when Goff had no recieving weapons, no Oline and no run game to help support him everybody and their dog was calling him a huge bust. I think it’s easy to say Josh did a lot more for his team while in a crappy situation. 

 

I agree he’s not the same player but if you start building around Josh the kid will start improving. We don’t got a Gurley on our roster so building the O will take alittle more time. 

[HappyDays]

19 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

The notion that Allen's completion percentage would be closer to other QBs when factoring in these throws was something that never made any sense. No matter how you slice it, he's one of the least accurate QBs in the league. 

 

It depends on what you mean by "closer to other QBs." Will Allen ever have the completion percentage of Drew Brees? I highly doubt it. But he could certainly get to a more acceptable level, over 60% for sure, if he gets a better offense around him. This is a very very small sample size but in KC Kelvin Benjamin has 2 catches on 4 targets. That was our #1 receiver for half the season. Yeah it's only 4 targets but that's 50% completion to him so far, and honestly if he was the #1 receiver there I don't think that would improve much.

 

I don't think anyone has said drops alone are forcing his completion percentage down. It is the talent around him as a whole. One thing that I don't believe gets factored into PFF's adjusted completion percentage is the ability of receivers to get separation. That has been a bigger problem for our offense than drops.

 

Of course Allen has to get better too. No one is denying that. His biggest supporters could have told you the day we drafted him that he wouldn't look like a finished product at the end of his rookie season. But the biggest thing he needs to improve, far more than accuracy, is reading the defense and making a quick throw. I don't expect his accuracy to ever improve much and I'm fine with that. His positive traits are at an elite level so you can make do with below average accuracy, but the right team needs to be around him and he needs to learn to run an NFL offense. Roethlisberger has never been a precise QB but he reads the defense well and he's always been surrounded by receivers with a big catch radius. That's the sort of offense I expect us to run with Allen for the rest of his career if he proves himself as a franchise QB.

 

A good example is Cam Newton. For the first 7 years of his career he completed 58.5% of his passes. In his MVP season he completed 59.8% of his passes. This year he suddenly became a 67.9% passer. And if you watch him play you will not see a guy who became 10% more accurate out of nowhere - he was pretty bad this season and was playing with an injured shoulder. But he's throwing more short passes to McCaffrey. That's the difference.

 

FWIW Chris Trapasso said all of this right after we drafted him:

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/heres-a-plan-for-the-bills-to-get-the-most-out-of-josh-allen-and-it-involves-cam-newton/

 

Allen has an accuracy problem much more than a ball-placement issue, and I categorize those weaknesses differently. 

Former Bills first-rounder EJ Manuel had a ball-placement issue, meaning the vast majority of his throws that were technically accurate enough for his receivers to make a catch were typically a little too high, too low, behind, or too out in front of their intended target. 

Allen will throw five strikes in a row with pinpoint accuracy, then launch a pass three yards over a wideout's head. That style is most manageable in a system with lower completion percentage expectations in the first place.

For Allen to lead a successful team in western New York for the next decade, the Bills should not waste time and energy trying to fix his faults but -- ready? -- fully embrace them while highlighting his strengths, most namely his rocket arm and athletic talents at 6-foot-5 and nearly 240 pounds. Essentially, Buffalo needs to be content with a boom-or-bust passing attack.

I think this article is exactly right. Forget trying to turn Josh Allen into Tom Brady. It isn't going to happen. Get receivers that can get consistent separation and/or make tough catches and go for the big play a lot more than most offenses. Of course Allen needs to learn to take the check down when it's there. But in general the offense will be a 1 for 2 passing where the completion is 20 yards, versus a 2 for 2 passing where both completions are 7 yards each.

[thebandit27]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

It depends on what you mean by "closer to other QBs." Will Allen ever have the completion percentage of Drew Brees? I highly doubt it. But he could certainly get to a more acceptable level, over 60% for sure, if he gets a better offense around him. This is a very very small sample size but in KC Kelvin Benjamin has 2 catches on 4 targets. That was our #1 receiver for half the season. Yeah it's only 4 targets but that's 50% completion to him so far, and honestly if he was the #1 receiver there I don't think that would improve much.

 

I don't think anyone has said drops alone are forcing his completion percentage down. It is the talent around him as a whole. One thing that I don't believe gets factored into PFF's adjusted completion percentage is the ability of receivers to get separation. That has been a bigger problem for our offense than drops.

 

Of course Allen has to get better too. No one is denying that. His biggest supporters could have told you the day we drafted him that he wouldn't look like a finished product at the end of his rookie season. But the biggest thing he needs to improve, far more than accuracy, is reading the defense and making a quick throw. I don't expect his accuracy to ever improve much and I'm fine with that. His positive traits are at an elite level so you can make do with below average accuracy, but the right team needs to be around him and he needs to learn to run an NFL offense. Roethlisberger has never been a precise QB but he reads the defense well and he's always been surrounded by receivers with a big catch radius. That's the sort of offense I expect us to run with Allen for the rest of his career if he proves himself as a franchise QB.

 

A good example is Cam Newton. For the first 7 years of his career he completed 58.5% of his passes. In his MVP season he completed 59.8% of his passes. This year he suddenly became a 67.9% passer. And if you watch him play you will not see a guy who became 10% more accurate out of nowhere - he was pretty bad this season and was playing with an injured shoulder. But he's throwing more short passes to McCaffrey. That's the difference.

 

FWIW Chris Trapasso said all of this right after we drafted him:

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/heres-a-plan-for-the-bills-to-get-the-most-out-of-josh-allen-and-it-involves-cam-newton/

 

 

 

 

 

I think this article is exactly right. Forget trying to turn Josh Allen into Tom Brady. It isn't going to happen. Get receivers that can get consistent separation and/or make tough catches and go for the big play a lot more than most offenses. Of course Allen needs to learn to take the check down when it's there. But in general the offense will be a 1 for 2 passing where the completion is 20 yards, versus a 2 for 2 passing where both completions are 7 yards each.

 

So, sort of like KC did with Mahomes, LAR did with Goff, and Chicago did with Trubisky?

 

Yes, that's the model. And like both LAR and Chicago, Buffalo is going to have to be willing to invest heavily--even if it means giving up premium draft picks via trade.

[VW82]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

OK, I'll weigh in here.  We know that, and you can too.  The analysis done by PFF would NOT meet the standards of any self respecting scientific journal.  The reason is that PFF does not sufficiently disclose their methodology for the decisions upon which their data analysis rests.  A standard principle of publication in a scientific journal is that the authors must disclose their methods in sufficient detail to enable an independent researcher to duplicate their work.

Let's start with one of the most straightforward metrics - "adjusted completion percentage".  On the surface, it's logical and straightforward - correct a guy's completion percentage for throw-aways, spikes etc.  But let's look at what they say: " At PFF, one of our advanced metrics of tracking quarterback play is called adjusted completion percentage, which accounts for drops, throwaways, spikes, batted passes and throws where the QB is hit on his release."  Right away, we see one clearly subjective metric.  Drops aren't an official NFL stat because what constitutes a drop is considered so subjective.  The guys who do track drops, do so with Mark I eyeballs.  They watch the placement of a ball, and decide whether or not a WR could have caught it with average effort.  As I understand it (but try to find this information!  and let me know if you do!) the ball has to hit a WR's hands within a rectangle from his thighs to just above his head and just wider than his shoulders to be called a drop.  But week in, week out, we see many WR on many teams routinely haul in balls that don't meet those criteria, and good QB routinely place balls outside those criteria in order to put the ball where their guy has a shot and the defender doesn't. 

People in this thread are asking a good question - is PFF dinging other QB when they throw a completion that wouldn't count as a drop if incomplete because the WR had to leap or dive or one-hand it, but they have more talented WR who haul it in?

Now let's move on to PFF's Big Black Box - their accuracy scoring.  " In addition to adjusted completion percentage, one of our more advanced quarterback statistics at PFF involved a process in which we chart every throw for accuracy, allowing us to further break down a QBs ball placement beyond completion percentage to see who’s placing the ball accurately – hitting receivers in stride, leading them away from defenders – compared to passers who are getting catchable balls to their playmakers – making a receiver reach back across his body to catch a ball, taking away YAC opportunities – and those who are throwing uncatchable balls. "

 

To meet the standards of a scientific journal, the details of the charting process would need to be disclosed.    But just generally, there's a problem with the accuracy thing.  The observer, who doesn't know the playcalls, is deciding whether or not the WR ran the correct route, as it was supposed to be run against that defensive coverage, and then whether the QB threw the ball into the correct place.  Without the play list, there's a huge element of subjectivity there.  When Allen throws too far out in front of Clay or Jones and they don't make the catch, is that an accurate throw where the receiver got jammed up on release or ran some detail of the route wrong, having them behind where they should have been?  Or did Allen rush the throw because of pressure (even though PFF might not score it as such) and just pray they'd turn on the burners and get there?  Or did he throw it inaccurately?  Allen knows, and the WR know, and Daboll and Culley know, but we don't and PFF doesn't.

 

So now you have a statistic with a huge subjective element (drops) being further processed to decide if the throws were 'accurate', by an undisclosed methodology.

 

No, that would not meet the standards of a decent scientific journal, and I know that, and you can too.  It doesn't mean PFF's assesment is valueless - as others have pointed out, whatever it is, they are applying it equally to all QB across the league.  But it does need to be interpreted with the understanding that there are subjective elements and what they are.

 

All fair points to which I agree, though I would assume (perhaps naively) that if PFF were to submit their analysis for peer review that they would also include their methodology so as to not be dismissed right out of the gate. Let's remember they're currently in the business of sports statistics, not academic research, and so they have a vested interest in not disclosing all aspects of their secret sauce. 

 

Also, and I don't know this but perhaps you do, are we sure they're not using SportVU cameras or other third party tech to track and break down games like the NBA? There seems to be a lot of certainty in this thread that their analysis is flawed without much to back that up (and that doesn't mean it isn't flawed obv). Again, just because they didn't disclose doesn't make their methodology wrong.

 

Your point about subjectivity surrounding play calling and design vs. execution is fair. Perhaps they should include that disclaimer with each post. One could surmise that even if Belichick was the grader (and doing so with accurate readings from high tech cameras in each stadium) there would still be an element of the highest form of educated guessing going on. As an aside, did anyone bother to check the credentials of the grader, or are we all just assuming he's an unqualified hack who wouldn't know a drop from a poorly placed throw if it hit him in the face? Surely there's an element of football education which when combined with a little common sense would allow most qualified graders to correctly diagnose what happened the majority of the time. Either way, you're right that on this fact alone, it wouldn't meet the standard.  

 

No analysis is going to be perfect without team participation. That said, I have trouble with outright dismissing this kind of analysis as many have done (not saying you did), and for completely arbitrary reasons, in much the same way I do people using it in isolation to come to a conclusion. Is it more or less valuable than say ten former HOF QBs watching tape of Allen, recording zero quantitative findings, and giving their well trained eye test analysis of him? Hard to say. As a general rule, I try to be open to new information and consider all of it. I'm not sure that's being done here. Actually, I'm fairly certain it isn't being done here, and the underlying reason why seems fairly obvious.. 

Edited December 29, 2018 by VW82

[Dr. Who]

21 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

My concern is currently based around the fact that Allen is the same guy now as he was in college.  

 

He makes wow throws, but misses easy ones. He has a huge arm, but he regularly misses wide open deep targets. He looks to run to quickly and doesn't read the field quickly. His accuracy and ball placement are suspect a lot of the time, and ultimately he struggles to complete more than half his throws on a weekly basis. Overall his efficiency as a passer is terrible, as it was in college. 

 

He needs to take a massive step forward next year. If his QB Rating isn't above 90 with a completion percentage around about 60% or higher, I'm moving on to someone else in 2020 when there should be a bunch of really good QBs in the draft. 

You're already walking him out the door and I'm halfway to buying his jersey (to be sure, I'm waiting till next year because maybe you're right and I'm wrong.)  I've been watching football for fifty years. I do not scrutinize numbers. I am not seeing the trainwreck you are. Allen seems to me very much a promising rookie.

[2003Contenders]

I find all of this over-analysis of a rookie QB By the pundits to be a bit silly., but here are a few thoughts:

 

1. I remember back in the 2005-2010 timeframe when the Bills would scrimmage the Packers in the preseason. Prior to the 2006 season, the two teams went toe-to-toe, and I remember at the time being so happy that the Bills had made the move up in the 2004 draft to get JP Losman rather than wait until 2005 to take Aaron Rodgers. During those 2006 drills and scrimmage, Losman (going into his 3rd season) looked so much more polished than did Rodgers (going into his second year). Doh!

 

2. For whatever reason, Josh Allen was a very polarizing figure headed into this 2018 draft. I am not sure why. Maybe it had something to do with the old guard (arm strength, measureables, prototypical physical traits, etc.) versus the new guard (analytics). The old guard cited Allen as a generational talent; the new guard did not see a great translation to the NFL based on his college stats. Guys like Mel Kiper and Phil Simms thought he should be the #1 overall pick. Other pundits did not even view him as a 1st round pick. The typical book on him was that he was going to be a "Boom or Bust" NFL QB. 

 

3. This polarization has led many of these pundits to remain steadfast (stubborn) in their evaluation. Rookie QBs are going to make rookie mistakes -- and the Allen detractors love clinging to the missteps he has made in each of his games. Of course, the Allen apologists are happy to blame every mistake he makes on the play calling, poor WRs, OL, etc.

 

4. The completion percentage remains a thing that the detractors refuse to let go. There certainly is some merit to the fact that Allen does not throw with the precision that a Drew Brees, for example, does. He didn't at Wyoming, and he has yet to demonstrate that he will in the NFL. That said, there are some mitigating factors, including a poor supporting cast. The one thing that no one wants to point out is that the types of passes that Allen thrives on are by their very nature high-risk, downfield passes, which naturally leads to a lower completion percentage. Trent Green and Bruce Ariens talked about this in the New England game. Josh's tendency is to always want to make that big play, when sometimes the smaller, more "sure thing" play is available.  Once he starts to better understand this, he will get better AND his completion % will improve. Again, he may never be a high 60's percentage passer, but that does not necessarily mean he cannot be successful.

 

5. Josh Allen really has been thrown to the wolves. I was one of those who believed going into the season that based on his rawness he would be a good candidate to sit the entire rookie season out and watch from the sidelines. I feared that (in addition to his lack of polish) that the less-than-adequate supporting cast would place him in an impossible position to succeed. That has largely been the case. However, rather than having his confidence shot the young QB has done a remarkable job of remaining poised and rising above it all. I like what I see in terms of the body language, confidence and leadership. Since returning from his injury, there has been little to no running game to speak of and with less-than-adequate receivers around him, Allen has had to do a great deal on his own. His future success will depend on finding that middle ground of competing on every play -- but at the same time learning to take what the defense is willing to give him.

 

6. One thing no one talks much about  are the intangibles that I just alluded to. From what I have seen so far, Allen has these in spades. You can sense that his teammates -- even veterans like Zo and Shady -- love his competitive leadership. And it doesn't sound like the "wishful thinking" sound bites we used to get in the days of Losman or EJ. He also seems to be very coachable and able to learn from his mistakes on the fly. (The Cover1 guys did a great job of breaking this down when going over the film from the New England game). The guys that have been busts (Leaf, Russell, etc.) all had fatal mental or character flaws. I don't see that with Allen. The physical goods are obvious, he seems like a smart young man -- and by all accounts he is willing to work to get better. I am not saying that the "Boom" tag will ever apply (although I hope it does) -- I just don't see the dreaded "Bust" tag ever coming into play. That is provided, of course, that Allen can avoid reckless play and protect himself from injury.

 

7. I must admit that I was ambivalent about the Josh Allen pick. I do not pretend to be a master of scouting college QBs and projecting whether or not they will ever evolve into being a quality NFL QB. To those who loved the pick, I say be patient. He is far from a finished product -- and the Bills would do well to set him up for success by improving his supporting cast in the off-season. To those who hated the pick, I say to also be patient and remember that even the most vocal Allen supporters acknowledged that he would have to go through some growing pains before getting better. If he can master the small things (game management stuff), he has so much upside with the big things (downfield threat and mobility) to truly be special.

Edited December 29, 2018 by 2003Contenders

[jrober38]

41 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

A good example is Cam Newton. For the first 7 years of his career he completed 58.5% of his passes. In his MVP season he completed 59.8% of his passes. This year he suddenly became a 67.9% passer. And if you watch him play you will not see a guy who became 10% more accurate out of nowhere - he was pretty bad this season and was playing with an injured shoulder. But he's throwing more short passes to McCaffrey. That's the difference.

 

Cam Newton's completion percentage went up 10 points because he threw 123 passes at Christian McCaffrey this season and McCaffrey caught 87% of them. 

 

His accuracy didn't change at all. He just threw more passes to an elite pass catching running back. 

 

Also Cam Newton is a much better football player than Josh Allen. He was a transcendent player at Auburn who carried his team to an undefeated season with minimal NFL talent around him through an SEC schedule. 

 

If Newton is the only model Allen has to mimic we're probably in trouble considering how the NFL is constantly becoming more and more pass happy. 

36 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

You're already walking him out the door and I'm halfway to buying his jersey (to be sure, I'm waiting till next year because maybe you're right and I'm wrong.)  I've been watching football for fifty years. I do not scrutinize numbers. I am not seeing the trainwreck you are. Allen seems to me very much a promising rookie.

 

He's not a train wreck. His running ability gives him a fairly high floor.

 

However as a passer, he's not even remotely close to being average relative to other NFL starters, and if he wants to survive in this league he's going to have to figure out that side of the game fast. Getting his 150-200 times a year (runs, sacks, QB hits) is eventually going to take a toll and he'll need to figure out how to operate out of the pocket, which is currently his biggest weakness. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

11 hours ago, VW82 said:

I'm tempted to give the PFF guys some benefit of the doubt. They have arguably the best publicly available football analytics site going. It's their job to break down tape and rate players, and be as objective as possible when doing so. I would assume they're applying the same methodology across the board for all QBs, so if that Foster miss was deemed to be on Allen then the same conclusion would probably be made for other QBs in all other similar circumstances.

 

I would agree, they are applying the same methodology across the board for all QBs, whatever that methodology is.  The question would be whether the methodology favors or disfavors certain QB or certain personnel situations?  And to what extent does it actually reflect the qualities which make QB play successful in the NFL?

 

As far as benefit of the doubt, my bottom line is this: look at their QB ranking for 2017 and decide how it matches or does not match your idea of effective QB play.

They had Tyrod Taylor at #12.  Notable guys rated lower would include Nick Foles - the QB who actually won the Superbowl - at #39; DeShaun Watson at #29; Derek Carr at #21; Kirk Cousins at #20; and Jared Goff at #18.  Aaron Rodgers is ranked just above Taylor at #11 and Case Keenum at #9.  They have Tom Brady at the top, and Matt Ryan #2, Wentz #5.

 

My bottom line is that for some reason, PFF's football analytics for QB do not accurately reflect that key metric of successful QB play - the ability to help a team generate points on offense.  That would put Goff #1; Brady #2; Wentz/Foles #3; Brees #4; Bortles #5; Smith #6; Stafford #7; Roeth #8; Flacco #9; and Keenum #10.  Ryan would be #15, Cousins #16, and Taylor #22.  You can look at different metrics - TDs, TD/INT, YPA, whatever you like.  I think you'll find a similar result - PFF QB ranking results don't seem to align with successful offensive football.
 

So look for yourself, and make your own decision about whether you accept or are skeptical of their QB rankings for previous years.  If it's the former, then you probably think they are right about Allen.  If it's the latter, then you would probably be right to be skeptical of their take on Allen - not because we think he's uniquely disfavored, but because their methodology doesn't seem to generate sensible results.