MDH Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 2 hours 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. 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. That’s not what I said. You’re putting me on one extreme because you’ve decided to take the opposite extreme.
K-9 Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: 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. Well, that’s why I ask everybody, what’s the cutoff number for completion percentage that says you’re a bust if you’re below it and a success if you’re above it? What was the benchmark in 1983? It is a better yardstick to compare among the entire peer group and even then, it’s just one metric of many that go into an honest analysis of a QBs effectiveness at the position. Completion percentage is just not the be all end all that certain detractors want to make it out to be in support of a biased analaysis. Edited May 28, 2019 by K-9
GunnerBill Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, K-9 said: Well, that’s why I ask everybody, what’s the cutoff number for completion percentage that says you’re a bust if you’re below it and a success if you’re above it? What was the benchmark in 1983? It is a better yardstick to compare among the entire peer group and even then, it’s just one metric of many that go into an honest analysis of a QBs effectiveness at the position. Completion percentage is just not the be all end all that certain detractors want to make it out to be in support of a biased analaysis. I think you have to be above 60% or pretty close to it. You can be below 60% if you are efficient making plays down the field the Cam Newton or younger Big Ben model if you like. Completion percentage isn't the be all and end all and there isn't a definitive cut off. The only stat that is the be all and end all is wins and losses. But make no mistake if Josh is passing at 53% completion the Bills win fewer games. I don't expect he will be by the way... I think a combination of him taking a step and an improved supporting cast will see a bump in his completion % in 2019. Edited May 28, 2019 by GunnerBill 1
Kemp Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 1 hour ago, MDH said: That’s not what I said. You’re putting me on one extreme because you’ve decided to take the opposite extreme. Here is what you 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 attributed Mayfield's success to having "the most talent around him". You attributed Rosen's poor season to he had the "least talent" around him". You said that surrounding talent talent is responsible "for all young QBs and just about all QBs in general". You said Mahomes would not have been the MVP :"if he doesn't have the best offensive talent in the league around him". How did I distort your position? Those are your words. 1
oldmanfan Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 2 hours ago, John from Riverside said: 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? I've posted the math I don't know how many times around here. If you throw 30 passes on average the difference between a completion percentage of 52% and 60% is 2.4 completions a game. So round off; that would be 2 more catches instead of drops, 2 less throwaways, etc., etc. , etc. and yes, two more good throws or two more checkdowns for easier completions. The constant misunderstanding and abuse of simple math and statistics by some boggles the mind. I'm not sure if it's just an innocent misunderstanding or a deliberate ignorance of such just to try and make the kid look bad. 1
John from Riverside Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 1 minute ago, oldmanfan said: I've posted the math I don't know how many times around here. If you throw 30 passes on average the difference between a completion percentage of 52% and 60% is 2.4 completions a game. So round off; that would be 2 more catches instead of drops, 2 less throwaways, etc., etc. , etc. and yes, two more good throws or two more checkdowns for easier completions. The constant misunderstanding and abuse of simple math and statistics by some boggles the mind. I'm not sure if it's just an innocent misunderstanding or a deliberate ignorance of such just to try and make the kid look bad. One thing I will add to this... This offensive line could not get out in front of a screen and block to save their lives. There are other moving parts to a short passing game and not just the QB throw in order for it to be successfull 2
oldmanfan Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 9 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: One thing I will add to this... This offensive line could not get out in front of a screen and block to save their lives. There are other moving parts to a short passing game and not just the QB throw in order for it to be successfull Agreed. Beane has added weapons and O linemen to the mix this year. Allen has a full off-season to review his performance, watch film, immerse himself in the playbook. And he'll have a full preseason as the #1 guy. Plus Dorsey will be at his side the whole time. Like every second year QB he has work to do and has to continue to up his game. We all get he needs to be better. Yet there is a very vocal group of individuals here who just blast away as if rookies never improve, and who seemingly can't wait to see the kid fail. Mystifying to me.
eball Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 50 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: Agreed. Beane has added weapons and O linemen to the mix this year. Allen has a full off-season to review his performance, watch film, immerse himself in the playbook. And he'll have a full preseason as the #1 guy. Plus Dorsey will be at his side the whole time. Like every second year QB he has work to do and has to continue to up his game. We all get he needs to be better. Yet there is a very vocal group of individuals here who just blast away as if rookies never improve, and who seemingly can't wait to see the kid fail. Mystifying to me. Welcome to the "I need to be right" era. This is why, in my opinion, @GunnerBill is one of the top five contributors to this board. First of all, he puts a tremendous amount of time and effort into his opinions and analysis -- you know he's not simply talking out his @$$. He has posted things I don't agree with, but get this -- he actually acknowledges differing opinions and never demeans those offering them. And further, he actually admits when his analysis may not have been the correct one! So many posters in this forum (and in the media) could learn a thing or two by looking at the way Gunner conducts himself. 2
oldmanfan Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 30 minutes ago, eball said: Welcome to the "I need to be right" era. This is why, in my opinion, @GunnerBill is one of the top five contributors to this board. First of all, he puts a tremendous amount of time and effort into his opinions and analysis -- you know he's not simply talking out his @$$. He has posted things I don't agree with, but get this -- he actually acknowledges differing opinions and never demeans those offering them. And further, he actually admits when his analysis may not have been the correct one! So many posters in this forum (and in the media) could learn a thing or two by looking at the way Gunner conducts himself. Gunner is a gem
Gugny Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 4 hours ago, John from Riverside said: 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? Yes ... then the crusaders will change their argument to ".... but how long did the passes go in the air?" They'll always adjust. Always ....
John from Riverside Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 34 minutes ago, eball said: Welcome to the "I need to be right" era. This is why, in my opinion, @GunnerBill is one of the top five contributors to this board. First of all, he puts a tremendous amount of time and effort into his opinions and analysis -- you know he's not simply talking out his @$$. He has posted things I don't agree with, but get this -- he actually acknowledges differing opinions and never demeans those offering them. And further, he actually admits when his analysis may not have been the correct one! So many posters in this forum (and in the media) could learn a thing or two by looking at the way Gunner conducts himself. Gunner is absolutely one of our walls very best contibuters.....find myself agreeing with him quite a lot
Gugny Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 1 hour ago, eball said: Welcome to the "I need to be right" era. This is why, in my opinion, @GunnerBill is one of the top five contributors to this board. First of all, he puts a tremendous amount of time and effort into his opinions and analysis -- you know he's not simply talking out his @$$. He has posted things I don't agree with, but get this -- he actually acknowledges differing opinions and never demeans those offering them. And further, he actually admits when his analysis may not have been the correct one! So many posters in this forum (and in the media) could learn a thing or two by looking at the way Gunner conducts himself. 37 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: Gunner is a gem 33 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: Gunner is absolutely one of our walls very best contibuters.....find myself agreeing with him quite a lot You guys are creating a monster, here.
oldmanfan Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, Gugny said: You guys are creating a monster, here. I put you in the same class! 1
John from Riverside Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 3 minutes ago, Gugny said: You guys are creating a monster, here. We love you to Gug 1
dave mcbride Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 (edited) I'm a big Schatz fan and a believer FO's methods, but Allen is a weird case. Everything Schatz says is basically true (and he was very inaccurate last season), and Schatz's argument is probability-based and works off of past performance. So what he's saying shouldn't be controversial to anyone here but to the hardest-core Kool-Aid drinkers. However, it is the case that Allen is quite possibly the most physically gifted physical specimen to ever play QB. I'm not exaggerating either: he has the strongest arm ever judging by velocity (he utterly buried previous velocity records at the senior bowl, throwing in the high 60s -- which is just ridiculous), and on top of that he's an incredible athlete with perfect size (6'5" and 237 lbs.). Plus he's bright, at least as measured by the Wonderlic. So, basically, he has all of the tools you could ever want. The big question is, can an athlete that is so amazingly talented overcome his statistical past? I don't think anyone knows, but I do now one thing for certain: there's no one to measure him against physically because he's more physically talented than anyone who has come before him: https://trib.com/sports/college/wyoming/football/john-brenkus-of-espn-s-sport-science-analyzes-josh-allen/article_dfd31bdd-f0d7-5a2f-8811-4f3a22c661c1.html. I mean, these numbers are just crazy. It doesn't get discussed enough. He's the ultimate test case in the battle between the stat heads and the scouts. Edited May 28, 2019 by dave mcbride 2
GunnerBill Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 41 minutes ago, Gugny said: You guys are creating a monster, here. Whereas you are already a monster Gug... ? But seriously, @eball and others you are too kind. I think any opinion is only worth having if there is a reason that you hold it and you are willing, if the evidence changes, to change it. The one thing I never do is give the Bills a home town discount in my opinions. I try to judge moves fairly and objectively. Doesn't mean I will call everything right but I don't give them team the benefit of the doubt just because I want them to be right. The Jerry Hughes extension was a classic example. I had set out my tests for a sensible Jerry Hughes extension that I would support in a thread about 2 months ago. When the news came I stuck to that view, waited for the detailed breakdown and said if it doesn't meet those then I will have concerns - even when everyone else was rushing to applaud. As it turned out the contract did basically meet what I viewed as the right level of risk and I joined the applause.
C.Biscuit97 Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 6 hours ago, eball said: I think John Elway the GM would schitt himself if he could have Josh Allen on his roster. That should worry you then. 1
GunnerBill Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 5 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: I'm a big Schatz fan and a believer FO's methods, but Allen is a weird case. Everything Schatz says is basically true (and he was very inaccurate last season), and Schatz's argument is probability-based and works off of past performance. So what he's saying shouldn't be controversial to anyone here but to the hardest-core Kool-Aid drinkers. However, it is the case that Allen is quite possibly the most physically gifted physical specimen to ever play QB. I'm not exaggerating either: he has the strongest arm ever judging by velocity (he utterly buried previous velocity records at the senior bowl, throwing in the high 60s -- which is just ridiculous), and on top of that he's an incredible athlete with perfect size (6'5" and 237 lbs.). Plus he's bright, at least as measured by the Wonderlic. So, basically, he has all of the tools you could ever want. The big question is, can an athlete that is so amazingly talented overcome his statistical past? I don't think anyone knows, but I do now one thing for certain: there's no one to measure him against physically because he's more physically talented than anyone who has come before him: https://trib.com/sports/college/wyoming/football/john-brenkus-of-espn-s-sport-science-analyzes-josh-allen/article_dfd31bdd-f0d7-5a2f-8811-4f3a22c661c1.html. I mean, these numbers are just crazy. It doesn't get discussed enough. He's the ultimate test case in the battle between the stat heads and the scouts. He is unusual in so many ways. But I don't think Josh Allen resets the paradigm however things work out for him. Because there is so much about his scenario and style that is unique to him. 1
oldmanfan Posted May 28, 2019 Posted May 28, 2019 7 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: I'm a big Schatz fan and a believer FO's methods, but Allen is a weird case. Everything Schatz says is basically true (and he was very inaccurate last season), and Schatz's argument is probability-based and works off of past performance. So what he's saying shouldn't be controversial to anyone here but to the hardest-core Kool-Aid drinkers. However, it is the case that Allen is quite possibly the most physically gifted physical specimen to ever play QB. I'm not exaggerating either: he has the strongest arm ever judging by velocity (he utterly buried previous velocity records at the senior bowl, throwing in the high 60s -- which is just ridiculous), and on top of that he's an incredible athlete with perfect size (6'5" and 237 lbs.). Plus he's bright, at least as measured by the Wonderlic. So, basically, he has all of the tools you could ever want. The big question is, can an athlete that is so amazingly talented overcome his statistical past? I don't think anyone knows, but I do now one thing for certain: there's no one to measure him against physically because he's more physically talented than anyone who has come before him: https://trib.com/sports/college/wyoming/football/john-brenkus-of-espn-s-sport-science-analyzes-josh-allen/article_dfd31bdd-f0d7-5a2f-8811-4f3a22c661c1.html. I mean, these numbers are just crazy. It doesn't get discussed enough. He's the ultimate test case in the battle between the stat heads and the scouts. Several folks on this board have looked at every pass from multiple games that Allen played in last year and shown that the inaccuracy thing is way overblown if not outright wrong. Yet you and others persist.
Recommended Posts