Aaron Schatz Football Outsiders-- Still Doubts Josh

[SoTier]

 

12 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

In Josh Allen's first year he improved as the season progressed. He came back as a much better player from his injury and showed a lot of moxie. We must remember that he wasn't slotted to be the starter and got few first team reps right up to the 2nd regular season game. He's a physically gifted QB with a brain and a lot of heart. The eye test says he's "got it".

 

Aaron Schatz has no clue as to how good of a QB Allen can be. The improvement from his first game to his last was impressive and anyone watching all his games would know that.  While he's not yet where he needs to be there doesn't appear to be anything holding him back.

 

Actually, all the 2018 first round QBs except for Rosen showed marked improvement as the season progressed.  I expect all of them to show at least some improvement coming into 2019.  How much they improve from where they were last season and if they continue to improve throughout 2019 will be real indicators of their future success.

 

11 hours ago, eball said:

 

Allen doesn’t have a classic NFL QB pedigree. He had to fight to get a D-1 scholarship. His physical talents alone make that a curious conundrum. Why did no big college programs want him? You don’t think these schools would have loved to work with a kid with Josh’s talent? They whiffed. 

 

Allen’s stats in college are what they are. It’s irrelevant to me what other QBs in his conference did. But those stats are being used by some as “evidence” he will not succeed in the NFL, rather than as one piece of a much larger puzzle. The analytics crowd want so desperately to turn the prediction of success/failure into a series of data points, but that’s not the only (or even the best, perhaps) way to predict NFL QB play. 

 

What do I see in Allen?

 

A - physical attributes that are in the top 10% of all NFL starting QBs

 

B - evidence of being a “smart guy” (i.e., high Wonderlic score, presence in public/media situations)

 

C - evidence of strong leadership skills (i.e., teammates gushed about him last year; took initiative welcoming FAs this year without prompting)

 

D - evidence of a strong desire to improve (continuing work with Palmer in offseason)

 

Remember when Whaley tried (unsuccessfully) to sell us on EJ Manuel having the “it” factor? Josh Allen has the “it” factor in spades. That’s no guarantee he’ll succeed, but after seeing his first season and the way he has conducted himself I now believe there is a more likely chance than not he will be a successful QB for the Bills for years to come, and it will be shown that college analytics failed miserably to predict his NFL career. 

 

 

Your A, B & D reasons are true for almost every QB who's drafted in the first round.   Your examples of his leadership skills (C) aren't really very good.  Lots of mediocre QBs have done both.  Allen got his teammates to play better last season -- within the limits of their less than average abilities in too many cases unfortunately -- which is the key indicator of a QB having the "it factor".   That on-field leadership is what Allen demonstrated last season, and is probably his most encouraging trait.

 

His teammates believe in him now, but in order for them to continue to believe -- and give that extra bit of effort -- Allen has to up his game, too.  He has got to get better as a passer and a decision maker, and if he does that, then his stats --and his analytics -- will automatically improve.   A QB who can't complete somewhere around 60% of his pass attempts isn't going to lead his team to many wins.  A QB who throws too many INTs or takes too many sacks or fumbles too often because he holds the ball too long isn't going to lead his team to many wins --- and his teammates aren't going to continue to follow his lead without on field success.

 

[eball]

2 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

A - That he is big and throws hard? JaMarcus Russell had that.

B - Fitzpatrick had a higher score, I believe. Presence in media situations is of no value as a predictor of success.

C - Is of no value as a predictor of success.

 

D - Is of no value as a predictor of success.

Again, this doesn't mean he won't be great, but it in no way points to success, either.

 

Meh, you just don't get it (or don't want to).  Josh exhibits all of the qualities one would want to see in a successful NFL QB -- literally the only knock is that he didn't complete enough passes in college.  And you keep failing to see that I didn't say he will be great, just that from what I've seen he has a better than 50% chance of being successful.

[Kemp]

11 hours ago, billsfan1959 said:

Based on the fact that they have no predictive value.  Provide me with one stat that has any predictive value as to what Allen may do this year or next year.

 

The belief that he wouldn't be accurate in the NFL is a result of his being inaccurate in college. It might turn out to be wrong, but you are saying it's wrong based on even less evidence. 

This IT factor that some of you are talking about is 100% opinion-based. Doesn't mean it will turn out wrong, but you can't argue that it's based upon anything that can be verified.

47 minutes ago, MDH said:

 

I don’t think it’s coincidence that the guy who looked the best last season - Mayfield- had the most talent around him just like it’s not a coincidence that the QB who struggled the most - Rosen- had the least talent.

 

For Shatz to say if Allen succeeds it will be because of the talent around him is laughable, that’s true of all young QBs and just about all QBs in general.

 

Does anybody think Mahomes is the MVP if he doesn’t have the best offensive talent in the league around him?

 

You're saying that the offense makes the QB. I think it's the opposite.

If you were correct, no QB should ever be taken early in the draft.

[WideNine]

36 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

 

Actually, all the 2018 first round QBs except for Rosen showed marked improvement as the season progressed.  I expect all of them to show at least some improvement coming into 2019.  How much they improve from where they were last season and if they continue to improve throughout 2019 will be real indicators of their future success.

 

 

 

Your A, B & D reasons are true for almost every QB who's drafted in the first round.   Your examples of his leadership skills (C) aren't really very good.  Lots of mediocre QBs have done both.  Allen got his teammates to play better last season -- within the limits of their less than average abilities in too many cases unfortunately -- which is the key indicator of a QB having the "it factor".   That on-field leadership is what Allen demonstrated last season, and is probably his most encouraging trait.

 

His teammates believe in him now, but in order for them to continue to believe -- and give that extra bit of effort -- Allen has to up his game, too.  He has got to get better as a passer and a decision maker, and if he does that, then his stats --and his analytics -- will automatically improve.   A QB who can't complete somewhere around 60% of his pass attempts isn't going to lead his team to many wins.  A QB who throws too many INTs or takes too many sacks or fumbles too often because he holds the ball too long isn't going to lead his team to many wins --- and his teammates aren't going to continue to follow his lead without on field success.

 

 

I guess It is a good thing that folks were not blinded by completion % stats when Peyton Manning entered the league.

 

After his rookie season of 28 interceptions and his 56% completion rate they should have pulled the plug....nothing to build on with those flawless analytics.

 

...and now watch the analytics crowd TRY to find all the ways that it did not apply to a very successful QB.

 

The bias effect of cherry-picking the stats that support previous assumptions.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by WideNine

[White Linen]

On 5/25/2019 at 12:01 PM, Doc said:

Opinions...

 

They're like...

[billsfan1959]

2 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

The belief that he wouldn't be accurate in the NFL is a result of his being inaccurate in college. It might turn out to be wrong, but you are saying it's wrong based on even less evidence. 

This IT factor that some of you are talking about is 100% opinion-based. Doesn't mean it will turn out wrong, but you can't argue that it's based upon anything that can be verified.

The inaccuracy issue has been debated ad nauseum and there are differing theories on the topic. I am not going to rehash them here. What I would say is that his completion percentages in college and his 1st year in the NFL are statistical facts. WHY they were low and WHAT they mean are completely subjective - and as opinion based as the "IT factor" you mentioned. So, the stats, in and of themselves have no predictive ability regarding whether or not Allen will be a successful NFL QB. There are so many variables involved in the analysis of accuracy, some of them correctable and some of them not. Which variables apply to Allen is open to debate, but, again, completely subjective. 

[Kemp]

25 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Meh, you just don't get it (or don't want to).  Josh exhibits all of the qualities one would want to see in a successful NFL QB -- literally the only knock is that he didn't complete enough passes in college.  And you keep failing to see that I didn't say he will be great, just that from what I've seen he has a better than 50% chance of being successful.

 

I'm saying his stats have been poor in college and in the NFL, but admit he might improve.

You say he has a better than 50% chance of success based on certain qualities that you can't define other than intangibles.

I am comfortable with my position and you are comfortable with yours.

Hopefully, you're right, because I don't want another 3-year window of waiting.

19 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

I guess It is a good thing that folks were not blinded by completion % stats when Peyton Manning entered the league.

 

After his rookie season of 28 interceptions and his 56% completion rate they should have pulled the plug....nothing to build on with those flawless analytics.

 

...and now watch the analytics crowd TRY to find all the ways that it did not apply to a very successful QB.

 

The bias effect of cherry-picking the stats that support previous assumptions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The easy answer to that is for every Peyton Manning there are 10 QBs who start slowly and don't get better. Manning is the unusual case.

[Bill from NYC]

15 hours ago, eball said:

 

I maintain that Allen is an analytical unicorn. The stats used to measure him in college do not take into effect factors like what sort of coaching he received, the skill of his teammates, and his experience playing the position. If you want to respond that “all D-1 QBs are measured the same way” that’s fine, but I’ll assert that statistics used in that way are flawed.

 

I think nearly everyone who questions Allen as a “valid” NFL starter has solely relied upon those flawed college statistics. Allen’s low completion percentage during his first season in Buffalo appears to them to be proof of his expected failure.  They are making the same mistake. 

 

Give me one good reason why a player possessing Allen’s physical and mental characteristics couldn’t get a sniff from any decent D-1 program? That, by itself, is evidence of a flawed system. You’re really telling me the top college programs wouldn’t want a talent like Allen in their system? They just “missed” on him because he didn’t have the right pedigree, so he went to a crappy Wyoming program where he still elevated those around him. 

 

This kid may be the most unintentional victim of “analytics” in sports history. It’s going to be a joy watching him shut all of the doubters’ mouths. 

This is an interesting point of view.

 

Imo, other than health, it boils down to Allen's head because he has unbelievable tools. Josh has a Ryan Mallet arm (quite the compliment), and he is an excellent runner. That is some combination! If he can figure the game out he is going to be tough to stop.

 

Perhaps Oliver is in a situation that is a bit similar. He looks to have absolutely tremendous talent but who did he play against? We need to develop both players, keep them healthy, and win football games.

[WideNine]

36 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

The easy answer to that is for every Peyton Manning there are 10 QBs who start slowly and don't get better. Manning is the unusual case.

 

Interesting.

 

Because there are multiple documented statistical reviews that showed significant progress by Josh Allen even within his first season.  His performance pre-injury compared to his post-injury performance paint a clear picture of stats trending in the right direction.

 

Most are aware of this yet continue to use an amalgam of his poor early stats mixed with his more favorable post injury stats to drive the overall performance stats down to better support a negative narrative.

 

I find this approach to be disingenuous, but I will respect the doubters who are intent on seeing more proof. It has not been all rainbows and unicorns for us fans, and I get that optimism can be in short supply.

 

[K-9]

3 hours ago, richardb1952 said:

52.8% completion rate will not make it in the NFL and Analytics is basically saying that.  How does running for over 600 yards and 8 TDs factor into being an "effective" QB, which is really all that matters.  If Allen wasn't as athletic as he is with running ability and being able to extend plays (something analytics isn't able quantify for QBs), we would all be on Beane for taking Allen.  I'm looking forward to watching Allen progress this year with a better OL, a better running attack and WRs that can get separation.  Ultimately though, Allen has to improve his completion % and his decision making.  Hopefully, with the revamped Offense, we will see Allen improve in the areas Analytics sees as essential to success as a QB.  His athleticism, hopefully, can be the icing on the cake that can help him become elite.

 

I also like Dabol and look forward to what he can do with better offensive weapons.  Should be an exciting season.

Where does Allen’s completion rate have to be? Where is the line of demarcation that says if your below it you fail and if you’re above it you succeed? 

 

If you had a rookie QB that completed 47% his rookie year and 56% his second year, would you cut him? 

[richardb1952]

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Where does Allen’s completion rate have to be? Where is the line of demarcation that says if your below it you fail and if you’re above it you succeed? 

 

If you had a rookie QB that completed 47% his rookie year and 56% his second year, would you cut him? 

 

If he didn't bring anymore to the table than just those stats (47% and 56%), if he wasn't also a dangerous runner or could extend plays, and if I thought that he is surrounded with enough talent to have better stats than that, yes, I probably would look to move on from that type of QB. Certainly I would be looking to add competition to the mix.

 

The fact that Allen has a running dimension to his game and can extend plays gives me hope that, with better surrounding talent, he can be a 60% + type QB.

 

I also think that his running ability and 8 TDs he scored on the ground should also factor into his ability to be an NFL starting QB.  I believe Allen has a lot of upside, but I also feel he needs to complete 60+% and read defenses quicker.  The rest should take care of itself.

 

[K-9]

10 minutes ago, richardb1952 said:

 

If he didn't bring anymore to the table than just those stats (47% and 56%), if he wasn't also a dangerous runner or could extend plays, and if I thought that he is surrounded with enough talent to have better stats than that, yes, I probably would look to move on from that type of QB. Certainly I would be looking to add competition to the mix.

 

The fact that Allen has a running dimension to his game and can extend plays gives me hope that, with better surrounding talent, he can be a 60% + type QB.

 

I also think that his running ability and 8 TDs he scored on the ground should also factor into his ability to be an NFL starting QB.  I believe Allen has a lot of upside, but I also feel he needs to complete 60+% and read defenses quicker.  The rest should take care of itself.

 

Good points about running ability and the ability extend plays. Those traits are invaluable, so I appreciate you mentioning them.

 

The QB I referenced above is none other than John Elway. In fact, it took him 10 years to hit the 60% plateau. But he had a strong arm, could move when needed and, more importantly, had a good head for the game and great leadership ability. 

 

I am in no way saying Allen is or will ever be John Elway. 

 

I am saying, John Elway wasn’t John Elway, either, his first several years and many of the same stat geeks would have written him off after his first two years, too.

[eball]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Good points about running ability and the ability extend plays. Those traits are invaluable, so I appreciate you mentioning them.

 

The QB I referenced above is none other than John Elway. In fact, it took him 10 years to hit the 60% plateau. But he had a strong arm, could move when needed and, more importantly, had a good head for the game and great leadership ability. 

 

I am in no way saying Allen is or will ever be John Elway. 

 

I am saying, John Elway wasn’t John Elway, either, his first several years and many of the same stat geeks would have written him off after his first two years, too.

 

I think John Elway the GM would schitt himself if he could have Josh Allen on his roster.

[K-9]

4 minutes ago, eball said:

 

I think John Elway the GM would schitt himself if he could have Josh Allen on his roster.

Aside from the development path (Elway was groomed his entire life to be a QB), they share a lot in common. Cannon arms, big, tough physical, can take a hit, run, etc. Allen also seems to possess Elway’s aptitude for the game as well, which is remarkable to me because of his lack of experience by comparison. 

[GunnerBill]

10 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Good points about running ability and the ability extend plays. Those traits are invaluable, so I appreciate you mentioning them.

 

The QB I referenced above is none other than John Elway. In fact, it took him 10 years to hit the 60% plateau. But he had a strong arm, could move when needed and, more importantly, had a good head for the game and great leadership ability. 

 

I am in no way saying Allen is or will ever be John Elway. 

 

I am saying, John Elway wasn’t John Elway, either, his first several years and many of the same stat geeks would have written him off after his first two years, too.

 

Indeed but the NFL of today isn't the NFL of the mid 80s. Completion rates are up across the league because of how the game is played now. 

[richardb1952]

I would hope it wouldn't take 10 years for Allen to get to 60%.  

[K-9]

8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Indeed but the NFL of today isn't the NFL of the mid 80s. Completion rates are up across the league because of how the game is played now. 

I’m well aware of that and I appreciate the problem that comparisons across eras may create at times.

 

But that doesn’t sway me in this case. There were 28 teams in the NFL in 1983 and Elway was last in completion percentage, just as Allen was last in 2018. From a peer group comparison I think it’s relative and valid.

 

John Elway was 4-10 as a starter his rookie year and was actually benched by Reeves for crappy play on his way to that 47% completion percentage. If the same stat gurus alive today were around to analyze his lousy metrics, they would have had the same field day they are having with Allen. 

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I’m well aware of that and I appreciate the problem that comparisons across eras may create at times.

 

But that doesn’t sway me in this case. There were 28 teams in the NFL in 1983 and Elway was last in completion percentage, just as Allen was last in 2018. From a peer group comparison I think it’s relative and valid.

 

John Elway was 4-10 as a starter his rookie year and was actually benched by Reeves for crappy play on his way to that 47% completion percentage. If the same stat gurus alive today were around to analyze his lousy metrics, they would have had the same field day they are having with Allen. 

 

Yes to be clear I was more responding to your comment about the 60% benchmark. The 60% benchmark was not the benchmark in 1983 the way it is today. Josh won't get 10 years to get there. It isn't the most important thing - but improving his completion % does matter. 

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, WideNine said:

 

I guess It is a good thing that folks were not blinded by completion % stats when Peyton Manning entered the league.

 

After his rookie season of 28 interceptions and his 56% completion rate they should have pulled the plug....nothing to build on with those flawless analytics.

 

...and now watch the analytics crowd TRY to find all the ways that it did not apply to a very successful QB.

 

The bias effect of cherry-picking the stats that support previous assumptions.

 

 

 

Where did I say that Allen was doomed to failure because he didn't play all that well as a rookie?   I said that he has to improve his passing and decision making significantly as a sophomore if we can truly expect him to become a good/great QB, and if he does that, then his stats will reflect his improvement as will the team record.   Statistics are simply reflections of how well a QB plays, and that means passing statistics.   If a QB can run -- provided he doesn't get hurt -- then that's only icing on the cake, but it does not cancel out mediocre passing ability and decision making,

 

As for "cherry picking", that's exactly what you did by only citing Manning's rookie season.  Peyton Manning had a higher completion percentage as a rookie (56+%) than Allen (52+%).   He threw 26 TDs, 28 INTs, 3700+ yards and his team went 3-13.  If he had continued putting up those kinds of numbers, he'd have been considered a bust not a future first ballot HOFer.   However, in his second season, Manning made major improvements in his passing and decision making that resulted in him increasing his completion percentage to 62% and throwing another 26 TDs but only 15 INTs for almost 400 more yards ... with the Colts going 13-3.   Manning did what I said Allen has to do: improve his passing game and his decision making.  It's what just about every single successful QB since Manning has done, too.   How good a QB becomes largely depends upon how much and how long he can keep improving his play over the course of his career.   QB busts like Ryan Leaf or J'Marcus Russell never make significant improvement.  Others like David Carr, Mark Sanchez or EJ Manuel make modest improvements but hit their ceilings fairly early.  Some, like Joe Flacco, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger or Andy Dalton improve more over longer periods.  Then you have the guys like Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Brees,  and Wilson who seem to only get better with age.

 

 

[John from Riverside]

So just so I understand the issue.....

 

If Josh Allen throws (and completes) a few more screens...you know those super easy throws...then he will get to this 60 percent bench mark that folks are fretting about?