Josh Allen 2019 Regular Season at 58.8% Completion Percentage

[LSHMEAB]

4 hours ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

First off he's 1-4. The other loss was to Baker who does not have a higher QB rating. Baker does have a higher QBR than Allen, but then so does Fitzpatrick which would mean the Bills and Allen have 3 wins against teams with a QB with a higher QBR instead of 1. Not sure which metric you are going by. 

 

I do think you bring up some things to consider but overall I am not worried that we have a Mitch Turbitzky or Mark Sanchez situation on our hands.

Trubisky's demise after a year 2 jump similar to Allen's is "sort of" concerning, but while there are clear commonalities in skillset/issues, every one of Allen's strengths is better than Trubisky's. He's not gonna go out like that.

[DuckyBoys]

16 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Trubisky's demise after a year 2 jump similar to Allen's is "sort of" concerning, but while there are clear commonalities in skillset/issues, every one of Allen's strengths is better than Trubisky's. He's not gonna go out like that.

Other than being athletic but raw qbs I see the two as totally different qbs  Or at least how the Bears and Bills handled them.  Bears went with generate offense with easy scheme for the qb approach  The Bills have asked Josh Allen to be more of a prototypical down the field thrower  They didnt/dont go into games with a script of plays with easy pitch catch for the qb.    Trubisky rarely threw between the hashes and most of the routes were/are along the line of scrimmage with the occasional downfield sideline throws.  Defenses caught up with what the Bears are doing.  I dont see a drop off next year  I bet we see more progress especially if they improve the personel

[Zerovoltz]

10 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

Let's see your data to back this up.  I call complete and absolute BS and I refuse to do your homework for you.

 

....before I address you @Gugny I'd like to address the responses to my post

 

1. ...I am very clear that my prognostications have been poor, and I specifically mention  I have been wrong about Allen.  I am not sure any of you read that part...it's the last thing I wrote in my post.

 

2.  I didn't say the Bills had unsustainable defensive metrics.  I said the Bears did.  I also didn't say Allen would be like Trubisky.....I was pointing out....as at least one other person noticed, that Trubisky, really didn't become a bad QB or regress....his circumstances this year changed...injuries, schedule...not as good a D.  Many of you took that completely wrong and seemed to think it meant I think Allen = Trubs.....totally not what I was saying there....just pointing out, circumstances changed from year to year.

 

3.  On that note, someone noted that the up- down - up cycle of young and upcoming teams doesn't always happen....true.  

 

4.  Regarding Baker and that Allen/Bills record VS teams with better QB rated quarterbacks....I was using QB rating.  If I made an error on Baker...then my bad...It could be that his rating changed since I posted that...or probably I read it wrong.  

 

5.  I do understand the Bills and Allen have played some tough D...Ravens, Pats, others....

 

I am not trying to make a case that Allen sucks.  I am trying to make a case that Allen A) still has room for some improvement, but likely not a whole lot more, though it's possible.  B)....that even as Allen improves, gains experience etc...the Bills will probably face a better slate of QB/offenses next year, so even if Allen and the team are better, the record might not be.  C) AGAIN.....As I said in my other post.  My predictions on Allen have been WRONG.  He has far exceeded what I thought he would do....wich is why none of you should take what I am saying here and run to a bookie with your life savings.  I am making observations and posting them.  Feel free to discuss, laugh at me, hate me, that's all fine.  Part of the joy of sports is NOT knowing what is actually going to happen.  If we did, no one would watch or discuss.  I put my thoughts out there to be considered, criticized...etc...I like to think I know what I am talking about...but I probably don't.  This is a fun (and humbling) way to get my thoughts on the record.  

 

...I can't state this enough, and most of you don't believe me anyway.  I ENJOY WATCHING JOSH ALLEN PLAY.  I like watching Bills football.  

 

Ok....Gugny asked about my data.  ....so, I work a job where I sit for 12 hours at a time and monitor a transportation overlay computer system....it mostly runs smooth but sometimes it doesn't and that's why I have a job....to handle things when it doens't.  ......I have a TON of time to try and pass and so the other night at work, I started looking at several random QBs first 16 STARTS in the NFL, then compared that to their career averages to see how much deviation there was.  I charted Several.  I can post if you'd like.  

MOST of the guys I looked at...it was remarkable who little deviation there was from the averages of the 1st 16 games, to the averages for the whole of their careers. Joe Flacco for example...you can take his rookie year, and those stats don't deviate much at all from his career averages...he was who he was going to be after 16 games. There were a lot of guys I looked at who had similar showings.....Vinny Testaverde, Chad Pennington, Boomer Esiason, Don Majkowski....and many many more....just didn't deviate all that much from the guy they were in their first 16 games. Jay Cutler....his first 16 starts, were damn near spot on what his career averages ended up being. Pretty much the same for Jake Plummer as well.

Most guys tended to improve their Yards Per Game by 30-40 yards over their rookie years....the INT pct surprisingly, for many, went up overall, as they progressed. The Completion PCT didn't vary a whole lot....typically about a 3% incresase over the first 16 games compared to the whole of the career.

Some guys that were drastic outliers...Tom Brady...INT pct went way down, YPG went way up. John Elway's completion pct improved only modestly, but he was throwing for many more yards per game later on in his career. Alex Smith might be the biggest improvement from 16 games in, to whole career that I looked at....he was absolute trash 16 games in....if he hadn't been a 1/1, his career would have, and should have ended a very very long time ago....but his later career stats really pick way up....took him a long time to blossom into something decent I guess. Peyton Manning is another one whose first 16 wern't very good..but he improved accross the board substantially after that..His second set of 16 games was much closer to what his career averages would be, with the exception of completion PCT. Manning really got ALOT more accurate as time went on.

A few guys got progressively worse from their 16 starts onward.....Rick Mirer one of the better known QB's who came in hot, and then flamed out. People might mis remember Dan Marino a bit....his rookie year was 83, when he started 9 games and was quite good....it was 84 that he had his big record breaker year...so the first 5 games of that, along with is rookie year....Marino was mostly on his career averages when compared to his first 16 games overall. Matt Cassel was another one I looked at....his career trajectory...DOWNWARD....was interesting because his first 15 starts were with the Randy Moss patriots...the team that had gone undefeated in the regular season the year before. Cassel went 11-5 with that group and had decent numbers....never to be repeated. Bubby Brister actually was a little better to start than he ended up being over the course of his career....never posting good numbers..they just got worse over time.

While there are exceptions both where guys show out better than their first 16 and some show out worse....A TON of dudes....are who their first 16 starts say they are.

[Augie]

6 minutes ago, Zerovoltz said:

 

....before I address you @Gugny I'd like to address the responses to my post

 

1. ...I am very clear that my prognostications have been poor, and I specifically mention  I have been wrong about Allen.  I am not sure any of you read that part...it's the last thing I wrote in my post.

 

2.  I didn't say the Bills had unsustainable defensive metrics.  I said the Bears did.  I also didn't say Allen would be like Trubisky.....I was pointing out....as at least one other person noticed, that Trubisky, really didn't become a bad QB or regress....his circumstances this year changed...injuries, schedule...not as good a D.  Many of you took that completely wrong and seemed to think it meant I think Allen = Trubs.....totally not what I was saying there....just pointing out, circumstances changed from year to year.

 

3.  On that note, someone noted that the up- down - up cycle of young and upcoming teams doesn't always happen....true.  

 

4.  Regarding Baker and that Allen/Bills record VS teams with better QB rated quarterbacks....I was using QB rating.  If I made an error on Baker...then my bad...It could be that his rating changed since I posted that...or probably I read it wrong.  

 

5.  I do understand the Bills and Allen have played some tough D...Ravens, Pats, others....

 

I am not trying to make a case that Allen sucks.  I am trying to make a case that Allen A) still has room for some improvement, but likely not a whole lot more, though it's possible.  B)....that even as Allen improves, gains experience etc...the Bills will probably face a better slate of QB/offenses next year, so even if Allen and the team are better, the record might not be.  C) AGAIN.....As I said in my other post.  My predictions on Allen have been WRONG.  He has far exceeded what I thought he would do....wich is why none of you should take what I am saying here and run to a bookie with your life savings.  I am making observations and posting them.  Feel free to discuss, laugh at me, hate me, that's all fine.  Part of the joy of sports is NOT knowing what is actually going to happen.  If we did, no one would watch or discuss.  I put my thoughts out there to be considered, criticized...etc...I like to think I know what I am talking about...but I probably don't.  This is a fun (and humbling) way to get my thoughts on the record.  

 

...I can't state this enough, and most of you don't believe me anyway.  I ENJOY WATCHING JOSH ALLEN PLAY.  I like watching Bills football.  

 

Ok....Gugny asked about my data.  ....so, I work a job where I sit for 12 hours at a time and monitor a transportation overlay computer system....it mostly runs smooth but sometimes it doesn't and that's why I have a job....to handle things when it doens't.  ......I have a TON of time to try and pass and so the other night at work, I started looking at several random QBs first 16 STARTS in the NFL, then compared that to their career averages to see how much deviation there was.  I charted Several.  I can post if you'd like.  

MOST of the guys I looked at...it was remarkable who little deviation there was from the averages of the 1st 16 games, to the averages for the whole of their careers. Joe Flacco for example...you can take his rookie year, and those stats don't deviate much at all from his career averages...he was who he was going to be after 16 games. There were a lot of guys I looked at who had similar showings.....Vinny Testaverde, Chad Pennington, Boomer Esiason, Don Majkowski....and many many more....just didn't deviate all that much from the guy they were in their first 16 games. Jay Cutler....his first 16 starts, were damn near spot on what his career averages ended up being. Pretty much the same for Jake Plummer as well.

Most guys tended to improve their Yards Per Game by 30-40 yards over their rookie years....the INT pct surprisingly, for many, went up overall, as they progressed. The Completion PCT didn't vary a whole lot....typically about a 3% incresase over the first 16 games compared to the whole of the career.

Some guys that were drastic outliers...Tom Brady...INT pct went way down, YPG went way up. John Elway's completion pct improved only modestly, but he was throwing for many more yards per game later on in his career. Alex Smith might be the biggest improvement from 16 games in, to whole career that I looked at....he was absolute trash 16 games in....if he hadn't been a 1/1, his career would have, and should have ended a very very long time ago....but his later career stats really pick way up....took him a long time to blossom into something decent I guess. Peyton Manning is another one whose first 16 wern't very good..but he improved accross the board substantially after that..His second set of 16 games was much closer to what his career averages would be, with the exception of completion PCT. Manning really got ALOT more accurate as time went on.

A few guys got progressively worse from their 16 starts onward.....Rick Mirer one of the better known QB's who came in hot, and then flamed out. People might mis remember Dan Marino a bit....his rookie year was 83, when he started 9 games and was quite good....it was 84 that he had his big record breaker year...so the first 5 games of that, along with is rookie year....Marino was mostly on his career averages when compared to his first 16 games overall. Matt Cassel was another one I looked at....his career trajectory...DOWNWARD....was interesting because his first 15 starts were with the Randy Moss patriots...the team that had gone undefeated in the regular season the year before. Cassel went 11-5 with that group and had decent numbers....never to be repeated. Bubby Brister actually was a little better to start than he ended up being over the course of his career....never posting good numbers..they just got worse over time.

While there are exceptions both where guys show out better than their first 16 and some show out worse....A TON of dudes....are who their first 16 starts say they are.

Who, exactly,  do you expect is going to make it that far?  We are a bunch of pudgy couch potatoes, not a bunch of marathon runners from Ethiopia! 

[LSHMEAB]

10 minutes ago, Augie said:

Who, exactly,  do you expect is going to make it that far?  We are a bunch of pudgy couch potatoes, not a bunch of marathon runners from Ethiopia! 

Yeah. I think I probably lasted longer than most, but I had to tap out once the blue bolded text began.

[Jay_Fixit]

23 hours ago, Zerovoltz said:

....some unpleasant things to consider....

 

The Bills have played one of the easier NFL schedules this year.  The Bills are 1-5 against teams whose QB has a higher QB rating for the season than Josh Allen.  Your lone win against a higher rated QB was in Dallas VS Prescott.

 

The list of QB's that the Bills have defeated this year is a really really bad list.  It's not the Bills fault they got to play the QB's and schedule they played, but when they've had a good QB/team on the schedule, they haven't won.

 

The Bears played one of the easier schedules in 2018 and went 12-4 with their 2nd year QB and a dominant D.  The D had some really great, unsustainable metrics in 2018 that not surprisingly, they haven't been able to replicate in 2019, and Trubisky, hasn't been able to overcome that and carry the team.  I don't really think he's that different than he was last year, just different circumstances.

 

It's not unusual, for a young, ascending team with a young QB, to have a disappointing season, following a season where they jump up and have a good record for the first time in a while.

 

.......something else that should be of concern......MOST, but not all QBs, you can look at their stats for the first16 STARTS of their career, and you can get a real good idea of who they are going to be.  Most improve their YPG by 30-40 yards over their careers, and comp % goes up an average of about 3% higher for their career over what they produce in their first 16 starts.  INT % tends to stay about the same.  It's not certain, but it is probable, the Josh Allen we are seeing now, is the Josh Allen we'll be seeing for as long as he plays, with just minor improvement over time from this point on.

 

Given this, .....(prepares to duck as the stones come hurling toward me) ...The Bills will probably lose their playoff game, and probably will regress a bit in 2020.

 

I do think Allen is a superior QB to Trubisky and his ceiling is higher.  He's already defied what I thought he'd be capable of....so take my prognositcation here knowing I've already been wrong about Allen.

You have clown posts.

[Gugny]

2 hours ago, Zerovoltz said:

 

....before I address you @Gugny I'd like to address the responses to my post

 

1. ...I am very clear that my prognostications have been poor, and I specifically mention  I have been wrong about Allen.  I am not sure any of you read that part...it's the last thing I wrote in my post.

 

2.  I didn't say the Bills had unsustainable defensive metrics.  I said the Bears did.  I also didn't say Allen would be like Trubisky.....I was pointing out....as at least one other person noticed, that Trubisky, really didn't become a bad QB or regress....his circumstances this year changed...injuries, schedule...not as good a D.  Many of you took that completely wrong and seemed to think it meant I think Allen = Trubs.....totally not what I was saying there....just pointing out, circumstances changed from year to year.

 

3.  On that note, someone noted that the up- down - up cycle of young and upcoming teams doesn't always happen....true.  

 

4.  Regarding Baker and that Allen/Bills record VS teams with better QB rated quarterbacks....I was using QB rating.  If I made an error on Baker...then my bad...It could be that his rating changed since I posted that...or probably I read it wrong.  

 

5.  I do understand the Bills and Allen have played some tough D...Ravens, Pats, others....

 

I am not trying to make a case that Allen sucks.  I am trying to make a case that Allen A) still has room for some improvement, but likely not a whole lot more, though it's possible.  B)....that even as Allen improves, gains experience etc...the Bills will probably face a better slate of QB/offenses next year, so even if Allen and the team are better, the record might not be.  C) AGAIN.....As I said in my other post.  My predictions on Allen have been WRONG.  He has far exceeded what I thought he would do....wich is why none of you should take what I am saying here and run to a bookie with your life savings.  I am making observations and posting them.  Feel free to discuss, laugh at me, hate me, that's all fine.  Part of the joy of sports is NOT knowing what is actually going to happen.  If we did, no one would watch or discuss.  I put my thoughts out there to be considered, criticized...etc...I like to think I know what I am talking about...but I probably don't.  This is a fun (and humbling) way to get my thoughts on the record.  

 

...I can't state this enough, and most of you don't believe me anyway.  I ENJOY WATCHING JOSH ALLEN PLAY.  I like watching Bills football.  

 

Ok....Gugny asked about my data.  ....so, I work a job where I sit for 12 hours at a time and monitor a transportation overlay computer system....it mostly runs smooth but sometimes it doesn't and that's why I have a job....to handle things when it doens't.  ......I have a TON of time to try and pass and so the other night at work, I started looking at several random QBs first 16 STARTS in the NFL, then compared that to their career averages to see how much deviation there was.  I charted Several.  I can post if you'd like.  

MOST of the guys I looked at...it was remarkable who little deviation there was from the averages of the 1st 16 games, to the averages for the whole of their careers. Joe Flacco for example...you can take his rookie year, and those stats don't deviate much at all from his career averages...he was who he was going to be after 16 games. There were a lot of guys I looked at who had similar showings.....Vinny Testaverde, Chad Pennington, Boomer Esiason, Don Majkowski....and many many more....just didn't deviate all that much from the guy they were in their first 16 games. Jay Cutler....his first 16 starts, were damn near spot on what his career averages ended up being. Pretty much the same for Jake Plummer as well.

Most guys tended to improve their Yards Per Game by 30-40 yards over their rookie years....the INT pct surprisingly, for many, went up overall, as they progressed. The Completion PCT didn't vary a whole lot....typically about a 3% incresase over the first 16 games compared to the whole of the career.

Some guys that were drastic outliers...Tom Brady...INT pct went way down, YPG went way up. John Elway's completion pct improved only modestly, but he was throwing for many more yards per game later on in his career. Alex Smith might be the biggest improvement from 16 games in, to whole career that I looked at....he was absolute trash 16 games in....if he hadn't been a 1/1, his career would have, and should have ended a very very long time ago....but his later career stats really pick way up....took him a long time to blossom into something decent I guess. Peyton Manning is another one whose first 16 wern't very good..but he improved accross the board substantially after that..His second set of 16 games was much closer to what his career averages would be, with the exception of completion PCT. Manning really got ALOT more accurate as time went on.

A few guys got progressively worse from their 16 starts onward.....Rick Mirer one of the better known QB's who came in hot, and then flamed out. People might mis remember Dan Marino a bit....his rookie year was 83, when he started 9 games and was quite good....it was 84 that he had his big record breaker year...so the first 5 games of that, along with is rookie year....Marino was mostly on his career averages when compared to his first 16 games overall. Matt Cassel was another one I looked at....his career trajectory...DOWNWARD....was interesting because his first 15 starts were with the Randy Moss patriots...the team that had gone undefeated in the regular season the year before. Cassel went 11-5 with that group and had decent numbers....never to be repeated. Bubby Brister actually was a little better to start than he ended up being over the course of his career....never posting good numbers..they just got worse over time.

While there are exceptions both where guys show out better than their first 16 and some show out worse....A TON of dudes....are who their first 16 starts say they are.

 

Way up and way down isn't data; nor are wins and losses when we're talking about QBs.  You are a troll and you've spent way too many characters (although it looks as if you've copied/pasted) in proving so.  I've looked at real stats and your assertion is pure crap.  Good day, troll.  

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

4 hours ago, Zerovoltz said:

 ......I have a TON of time to try and pass and so the other night at work, I started looking at several random QBs first 16 STARTS in the NFL, then compared that to their career averages to see how much deviation there was.  I charted Several.  I can post if you'd like.  

MOST of the guys I looked at...it was remarkable who little deviation there was from the averages of the 1st 16 games, to the averages for the whole of their careers. Joe Flacco for example...you can take his rookie year, and those stats don't deviate much at all from his career averages...he was who he was going to be after 16 games. There were a lot of guys I looked at who had similar showings.....Vinny Testaverde, Chad Pennington, Boomer Esiason, Don Majkowski....and many many more....just didn't deviate all that much from the guy they were in their first 16 games. Jay Cutler....his first 16 starts, were damn near spot on what his career averages ended up being. Pretty much the same for Jake Plummer as well.

Most guys tended to improve their Yards Per Game by 30-40 yards over their rookie years....the INT pct surprisingly, for many, went up overall, as they progressed. The Completion PCT didn't vary a whole lot....typically about a 3% incresase over the first 16 games compared to the whole of the career.

Some guys that were drastic outliers...Tom Brady...INT pct went way down, YPG went way up. John Elway's completion pct improved only modestly, but he was throwing for many more yards per game later on in his career. Alex Smith might be the biggest improvement from 16 games in, to whole career that I looked at....he was absolute trash 16 games in....if he hadn't been a 1/1, his career would have, and should have ended a very very long time ago....but his later career stats really pick way up....took him a long time to blossom into something decent I guess. Peyton Manning is another one whose first 16 wern't very good..but he improved accross the board substantially after that..His second set of 16 games was much closer to what his career averages would be, with the exception of completion PCT. Manning really got ALOT more accurate as time went on.

A few guys got progressively worse from their 16 starts onward.....Rick Mirer one of the better known QB's who came in hot, and then flamed out. People might mis remember Dan Marino a bit....his rookie year was 83, when he started 9 games and was quite good....it was 84 that he had his big record breaker year...so the first 5 games of that, along with is rookie year....Marino was mostly on his career averages when compared to his first 16 games overall. Matt Cassel was another one I looked at....his career trajectory...DOWNWARD....was interesting because his first 15 starts were with the Randy Moss patriots...the team that had gone undefeated in the regular season the year before. Cassel went 11-5 with that group and had decent numbers....never to be repeated. Bubby Brister actually was a little better to start than he ended up being over the course of his career....never posting good numbers..they just got worse over time.

While there are exceptions both where guys show out better than their first 16 and some show out worse....A TON of dudes....are who their first 16 starts say they are.

 

And what does any of this have to do with Allen exactly? 

 

You do do realize that Allen still has six more games to play before he completes his second 16 games in the league? And what exactly is your argument? That Allen has plateaued for the most part and will only be marginally better than his first sixteen games?

 

Do you even realize that Allen has improved significantly so far from his first 16 games? His 16th game starting was the Titans game this year. Transplantbillsfan already gave you some of the splits although mine differ a bit. Not sure if he is using the week 1 game last season as Allen’s first game of not. I used the week 2 Chargers game since that was his first start.

 

First 16 games: 15 TD’s  19 INT’s

Next 11 games: 15 TD’s.  2 INT’s

 

I didn’t calculate his QB rating but this pretty much puts it into perspective and you can easily see that their is a huge improvement from first 16 to the next 11 games: 

 

First 16 games: 3 games >100 QB rating   5 games < 60 QB rating

Next 11 games: 5 games > 100 QB rating    0 games < 60 QB rating

 

No offense,  but I just don’t see how any of your thesis applies to Allen. You even give several examples of GOAT level QBs that had very poor stats for their first 16 games but progressively got better throughout their career. Exactly how Allen’s young career has gone so far. And given Allen’s background of playing at a JC and then small school Wyoming with weaker competition, it shouldn’t shock any of us that Allen will need more time than even just your average QB to fully develop.

 

You have apparently worked hard on calculating all these numbers for so many different QB’s but to quote one of the greatest Christmas movies of all time: “so do washing machines”.

[transplantbillsfan]

10 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

But in Josh Allen's first 16 games he averaged 186 YPG. 

 

In his last 11 he's averaged 198.

 

In his first 16 games he threw 13 TDs to 18 INTs.

 

In his last 11 he threw 17 TDs to 3 INTs.

 

In his first 16 games he had a passer rating of 68.4.

 

In his last 11 he has a passer rating of 92.1.

 

And do I need to bring up AGAIN the defenses the Bills have faced in the last 11 games? 

 

Look it up... not hard to see...

 

poor argument with regards to Allen.

 

@Zerovoltz please respond to this post rather than just ignoring it.

 

You argued that most QBs historically are what they were in their first 16 starts and so that means that, and I quote: 

 

MOST, but not all QBs, you can look at their stats for the first16 STARTS of their career, and you can get a real good idea of who they are going to be.

 

Well is your contention right now that Josh Allen is the 68.4 Passer Rating guy we saw for the first 16 games of his career rather than the 92.4 guy over the last 11?

 

Seems pretty idiotic to think a guy who's already improved this dramatically in 27 starts already won't continue improving.

 

You got your QB. Good for you. He's excellent.

 

I'm very excited about the QB for the Buffalo Bills...  and since I also believe there would not have been an apples to apples translation in production if the Bills were to draft Mahomes at 10 instead of trading back in 2017, I think Tre White combined with Josh Allen is just fine as the route our coaching staff and GM chose to go.

 

Maybe both of us should just hope our QB can stay healthy for longevity's sake.

[Zerovoltz]

2 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

@Zerovoltz please respond to this post rather than just ignoring it.

 

You argued that most QBs historically are what they were in their first 16 starts and so that means that, and I quote: 

 

MOST, but not all QBs, you can look at their stats for the first16 STARTS of their career, and you can get a real good idea of who they are going to be.

 

Well is your contention right now that Josh Allen is the 68.4 Passer Rating guy we saw for the first 16 games of his career rather than the 92.4 guy over the last 11?

 

Seems pretty idiotic to think a guy who's already improved this dramatically in 27 starts already won't continue improving.

 

You got your QB. Good for you. He's excellent.

 

I'm very excited about the QB for the Buffalo Bills...  and since I also believe there would not have been an apples to apples translation in production if the Bills were to draft Mahomes at 10 instead of trading back in 2017, I think Tre White combined with Josh Allen is just fine as the route our coaching staff and GM chose to go.

 

Maybe both of us should just hope our QB can stay healthy for longevity's sake.

 

......I did not say ALL QB.....are done....I then brought up examples of guys...who like Allen....made dramatic improvements after their first 16.  I didn't say he was done developing....I said he could be an exception....Not sure what you think I should have said?  That it's a foregone conclusion that given his current trajectory, Allen will be the ulitmate QB ever in 5 more starts?  That he's already the best?  What am I missing here?

[Zerovoltz]

4 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

Way up and way down isn't data; nor are wins and losses when we're talking about QBs.  You are a troll and you've spent way too many characters (although it looks as if you've copied/pasted) in proving so.  I've looked at real stats and your assertion is pure crap.  Good day, troll.  

 

I did copy and paste it...we were discussing this about Drew Lock on a Denver forum I post on.  It's part of a post I made there.  Easier than retyping it.  

 

If you'd like to the numbers I charted from the several I did, I could post them......and what is so hard to understand about saying that MOST, but not ALL QB's adhere to this....and that I further suggest that Allen may yet have more progress to make.....I was suggesting that it is likely that he's about done developing just based on the idea most guys are after 16 games...but I was purposeful to suggest he could be like the guys who improved even more after 16 games.   

 

3 hours ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

And what does any of this have to do with Allen exactly? 

 

You do do realize that Allen still has six more games to play before he completes his second 16 games in the league? And what exactly is your argument? That Allen has plateaued for the most part and will only be marginally better than his first sixteen games?

 

Do you even realize that Allen has improved significantly so far from his first 16 games? His 16th game starting was the Titans game this year. Transplantbillsfan already gave you some of the splits although mine differ a bit. Not sure if he is using the week 1 game last season as Allen’s first game of not. I used the week 2 Chargers game since that was his first start.

 

First 16 games: 15 TD’s  19 INT’s

Next 11 games: 15 TD’s.  2 INT’s

 

I didn’t calculate his QB rating but this pretty much puts it into perspective and you can easily see that their is a huge improvement from first 16 to the next 11 games: 

 

First 16 games: 3 games >100 QB rating   5 games < 60 QB rating

Next 11 games: 5 games > 100 QB rating    0 games < 60 QB rating

 

No offense,  but I just don’t see how any of your thesis applies to Allen. You even give several examples of GOAT level QBs that had very poor stats for their first 16 games but progressively got better throughout their career. Exactly how Allen’s young career has gone so far. And given Allen’s background of playing at a JC and then small school Wyoming with weaker competition, it shouldn’t shock any of us that Allen will need more time than even just your average QB to fully develop.

 

You have apparently worked hard on calculating all these numbers for so many different QB’s but to quote one of the greatest Christmas movies of all time: “so do washing machines”.

 

.....did you read what I wrote?  I think just about everyone stopped once they got to the part where I suggest most guys are done with major improvements after 16 games and you all just assumed that I must have said Allen is done developing and didn't read any further.  

[billsfan1959]

8 hours ago, Zerovoltz said:

1. ...I am very clear that my prognostications have been poor, and I specifically mention  I have been wrong about Allen.  

 

Ok....Gugny asked about my data.  ....so, I work a job where I sit for 12 hours at a time and monitor a transportation overlay computer system....it mostly runs smooth but sometimes it doesn't and that's why I have a job....to handle things when it doens't.  ......I have a TON of time to try and pass and so the other night at work, I started looking at several random QBs first 16 STARTS in the NFL, then compared that to their career averages to see how much deviation there was.  I charted Several.  I can post if you'd like.  

MOST of the guys I looked at...

Most guys ...

Some guys that were drastic outliers...

A few guys got progressively worse

While there are exceptions both where guys show out better than their first 16 and some show out worse....A TON of dudes....are who their first 16 starts say they are.

 

I trimmed your post to what was most important.

 

First, you, self admittedly, are not very good at prognostications and were wrong about Allen. It does beg the question, "If you you were wrong about him before, why in the world should anyone think you would be right about your new prediction of his demise?"

 

Second: A little food for thought on making predictions from statistics: When you look at a group of QBs and chart group statistics, you get group results, which will always give you numbers that somewhat apply to "most" QBs in that group - but not all. Which is why all you end up with is phrases such as what you used, "most guys," "some guys'" "a few guys," "a ton of dudes,"...

 

It is a pure actuarial method that is good for predicting probabilities along group lines, much like what insurance companies do. However, it provides no useful data for predicting probabilites at an individual level. For example, actuarial statistics might say that men in the US have a life expectancy of 76.1 years. It does not mean that you, individually, have a life expectancy of 76.1 years. Your life expectancy is based on variables unique to you.

 

I could explain it in much more detail; however, the point is that you can run all the numbers you want on every QB that has ever played the game and it will provide you with absolutely no relevant information as to how successful Josh Allen may or may not be. None. The level of success he attains will rest soley on variables unique to him.

 

So, why don't you stop coming on this site to keep telling us how bad Allen is going to be, because it is based on nothing but your opinion - which, I hate to give any credibility to at all by responding to it. However, I could not allow you to go on telling everyone that your conclusions are based on actual data, when they are not. They are merely opinions and likely to be as wrong as your previous ones.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by billsfan1959

[billsfan1959]

6 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

Way up and way down isn't data; nor are wins and losses when we're talking about QBs.  You are a troll and you've spent way too many characters (although it looks as if you've copied/pasted) in proving so.  I've looked at real stats and your assertion is pure crap.  Good day, troll.  

 

Amen, brother.

[Zerovoltz]

33 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I trimmed your post to what was most important.

 

First, you, self admittedly, are not very good at prognostications and were wrong about Allen. It does beg the question, "If you you were wrong about him before, why in the world should anyone think you would be right about your new prediction of his demise?"

 

Second: A little food for thought on making predictions from statistics: When you look at a group of QBs and chart group statistics, you get group results, which will always give you numbers that somewhat apply to "most" QBs in that group - but not all. Which is why all you end up with is phrases such as what you used, "most guys," "some guys'" "a few guys," "a ton of dudes,"...

 

It is a pure actuarial method that is good for predicting probabilities along group lines, much like what insurance companies do. However, it provides no useful data for predicting probabilites at an individual level. For example, actuarial statistics might say that men in the US have a life expectancy of 76.1 years. It does not mean that you, individually, have a life expectancy of 76.1 years. Your life expectancy is based on variables unique to you.

 

I could explain it in much more detail; however, the point is that you can run all the numbers you want on every QB that has ever played the game and it will provide you with absolutely no relevant information as to how successful Josh Allen may or may not be. None. The level of success he attains will rest soley on variables unique to him.

 

So, why don't you stop coming on this site to keep telling us how bad Allen is going to be, because it is based on nothing but your opinion - which, I hate to give any credibility to at all by responding to it. However, I could not allow you to go on telling everyone that your conclusions are based on actual data, when they are not. They are merely opinions and likely to be as wrong as your previous ones.

 

 

 

.....does a meteorologist quit forecasting because he misses a forecast?  Does a stock broker stop buying and selling stocks because they made a bad investment?  I hadn't realized that making a incorrect observation or prediction meant you could never offer an opinion or thought again.  

 

.....I didn't predict Josh Allen would fail to continue to develop.  I did point out that IF he does..it would be an outlier....MUCH LIKE his rise from a farm boy, unrecruited by big schools, then played at Wyoming and then drafted in the first round and so on....has been an outlier this entire time.  I was offering up some anecdotes to consider, not telling anyone that Allen sucks, is going to suck, regress or any of that....I was purposeful to say Allen may very well continue to develop.....it's a hell of an interesting story, made more interesting.  Can you, or anyone else point out where I said anything BAD about Josh Allen?  I opened my post with the line...some unpleasant things to consider....because entertaining the thought the team might enter a down year in the up-down-up cycle some young teams go through, is not a thought anyone here would consider pleasant...nor is the idea that it's possible that Allen, if he trended like most QB's have...could be done with substantial development.....another thing that wouldn't be fun to think about here...

 

No one at the end of last season thought the Bears wouldn't be a contender or that Trubisky would stall out.....the Bears 2019 season is a case that fits what I am talking about here.....I am suggesting it's a possiblity for the 2020 Bills...not that it's their destiny etched in stone.....Clearly these are unpleasant things to consider.....but that's all they are...just posibilities to think about.....BASED on a broad history.  If history dictated everything that happened in the future...we'd all know the future....and no one would care or watch or discuss football....we'd all know the outcome of everything.  

 

You certainly don't have to like or agree with my opinion or my methods to support my thoughts......and clearly a good number of people here do not.  ....so if I turn out to be wrong...then enjoy the crow that you can serve me...and I'll be here to eat it.  I'm certainly getting full of it from my lackluster season predictions that I posted here.

[billsfan1959]

6 minutes ago, Zerovoltz said:

You certainly don't have to like or agree with my opinion or my methods to support my thoughts......and clearly a good number of people here do not.  ....so if I turn out to be wrong...then enjoy the crow that you can serve me...and I'll be here to eat it.  I'm certainly getting full of it from my lackluster season predictions that I posted here.

 

A method that has no relevance, whatsoever, to supporting your thoughts is the same as having no method at all. You are offering nothing more than an opinion, which, like I said, is probably as likely to be wrong as your previous ones. To offer an opinion that you think Allen has reached his potential or close to it - which is what you said, is just that, an opinion. To say it is based on data is to show a complete ignorance on the analyses of data.

 

You showed up on this site the day after the 2017 draft ended. I doubt that was a coincidence. The likely bet is that you were a "pseudo" Bills fan prior to the draft, got upset when they failed to draft Mahomes, and then switched allegiances. That alone should be enough for everyone on this board to ignore you. You trolled this board after that draft and after the Bills drafted Allen.

 

You may have engaged in actual football discussions here and there; however, to come on this board and announce to everyone that you feel Allen has pretty much reached his potential and that there is a possibility he may regress, and claim it is based on some actual data, is nothing more than trolling, and really speaks less about wanting to engage in legitimate discussions and more about trying to meet your own psychological needs - as pathetic as they may be.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 hours ago, Zerovoltz said:

Ok....Gugny asked about my data.  ....so, I work a job where I sit for 12 hours at a time and monitor a transportation overlay computer system....it mostly runs smooth but sometimes it doesn't and that's why I have a job....to handle things when it doens't.  ......I have a TON of time to try and pass and so the other night at work, I started looking at several random QBs first 16 STARTS in the NFL, then compared that to their career averages to see how much deviation there was.  I charted Several.  I can post if you'd like. 

 

I'm all about football data.  So I would encourage you to post.  Not here; start a new thread.

I would encourage focusing on the modern game of football, say in the last 20 years. 

 

Bubby Brister and Dan Marino are historically interesting, but possibly not too relevant given the massive changes in how both the college passing game, and the NFL game, have changed today.

 

It may be a difficult data set to generate - if a guy is good right out of the gate, there's not too much room to improve.  If a guy is bad right out of the gate, teams may move on.

 

But I'd be interested to see it.

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

 

5 hours ago, Zerovoltz said:

....did you read what I wrote?  I think just about everyone stopped once they got to the part where I suggest most guys are done with major improvements after 16 games and you all just assumed that I must have said Allen is done developing and didn't read any further.  

 

I certainly read the entire post and it's an entire contradiction that draws zero conclusions as to if we have seen the best from Allen, if he will regress, stay the same, or get significantly better. Your post prior is the one where you state and these are your exact words: " it is probable, the Josh Allen we are seeing now, is the Josh Allen we'll be seeing for as long as he plays, with just minor improvement over time from this point on". The most confusing part of all this is that you don't seem to understand what Josh Allen's stats are for his first 16 games and his last 16 games. Did you forget that he only started 11 games last year? As I stated, with 5 games to go still, Allen so far falls in the category of QB's who have improved dramatically over his first 16 games.I mean heck, if the Allen we are seeing now (last 11 games) is the Allen we can expect in the future but slightly improved, then we're talking about legitimate franchise QB. I also don't think your thesis accounts for Allen being the one QB of all the recent QB's drafted that came into the league with the most to learn and longest development time. If any QB will continue to improve as he progresses through years 2,3,4 etc. it is Allen.

 

On 12/26/2019 at 9:05 PM, Zerovoltz said:

.......something else that should be of concern......MOST, but not all QBs, you can look at their stats for the first16 STARTS of their career, and you can get a real good idea of who they are going to be.  Most improve their YPG by 30-40 yards over their careers, and comp % goes up an average of about 3% higher for their career over what they produce in their first 16 starts.  INT % tends to stay about the same.  It's not certain, but it is probable, the Josh Allen we are seeing now, is the Josh Allen we'll be seeing for as long as he plays, with just minor improvement over time from this point on.

 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

3 hours ago, Zerovoltz said:

 

.  ....so if I turn out to be wrong...then enjoy the crow that you can serve me...and I'll be here to eat it.  I'm certainly getting full of it from my lackluster season predictions that I posted here.

 

If you turn out to be wrong? You already are wrong based on your first 16 games to next 16 games theory. Allen has improved in his 11 starts after his first 16 starts already. And if Allen never improves another iota beyond his current 11, while somewhat disappointing, he's still reached that low level franchise QB benchmark like a Eli Manning, Stafford or Newton. But if he improves just a bit, which I guess you think he might, then he's definitely a legitimate franchise QB.

[Scott7975]

3 hours ago, Zerovoltz said:

 

.....does a meteorologist quit forecasting because he misses a forecast?  Does a stock broker stop buying and selling stocks because they made a bad investment?  I hadn't realized that making a incorrect observation or prediction meant you could never offer an opinion or thought again.  

 

.....I didn't predict Josh Allen would fail to continue to develop.  I did point out that IF he does..it would be an outlier....MUCH LIKE his rise from a farm boy, unrecruited by big schools, then played at Wyoming and then drafted in the first round and so on....has been an outlier this entire time.  I was offering up some anecdotes to consider, not telling anyone that Allen sucks, is going to suck, regress or any of that....I was purposeful to say Allen may very well continue to develop.....it's a hell of an interesting story, made more interesting.  Can you, or anyone else point out where I said anything BAD about Josh Allen?  I opened my post with the line...some unpleasant things to consider....because entertaining the thought the team might enter a down year in the up-down-up cycle some young teams go through, is not a thought anyone here would consider pleasant...nor is the idea that it's possible that Allen, if he trended like most QB's have...could be done with substantial development.....another thing that wouldn't be fun to think about here...

 

No one at the end of last season thought the Bears wouldn't be a contender or that Trubisky would stall out.....the Bears 2019 season is a case that fits what I am talking about here.....I am suggesting it's a possiblity for the 2020 Bills...not that it's their destiny etched in stone.....Clearly these are unpleasant things to consider.....but that's all they are...just posibilities to think about.....BASED on a broad history.  If history dictated everything that happened in the future...we'd all know the future....and no one would care or watch or discuss football....we'd all know the outcome of everything.  

 

You certainly don't have to like or agree with my opinion or my methods to support my thoughts......and clearly a good number of people here do not.  ....so if I turn out to be wrong...then enjoy the crow that you can serve me...and I'll be here to eat it.  I'm certainly getting full of it from my lackluster season predictions that I posted here.

 

I stayed out of this for a bit to see where it was going.  Here is my impression.

 

You imply that Allen sucks and will always suck based on some data points that you collected about some old ancient history QBs and some newer non franchise QBs.  Its like you completely skipped the current NFL starters.  Wait on that though.

 

You imply Allen sucks and will always suck.  People call you out on it and then you go into... but wait I said he COULD be an outlier.  You can't criticize our players and then not take criticism for it.  That's not how this works.  Just say what you believe and freaking argue it.

 

As for your data points.  Why don't you take some QBs that are current and look at their first 16 games vs 16 games say 4 years later.  That would be way more relevant than some QB from 20 years ago.  I don't mean pick just Flacco either.  Let me tell you why your data and analysis suck.  Its because you are biased and picked data based on your bias to prove yourself.  What were Russel Wilsons numbers first 16 against 16 say year 4.  What were Big Bens.  What were Drew Brees.  What were Alex Smith in his first 16 vs when he was coached by Harbaugh forward.  Do them all.

 

What you did was choose old QBs that came in the league slinging and continued to sling and some newer QBs that came in the league mediocre and stayed mediocre.  Of course the data is going to show that... because that's what happened.  If you noticed the QBs that I named... those are QBs that I remember that came in decent but then improved a lot.  I didn't look.  Its just off biased memory. 

 

This is why you should take all the current starters that have played at least a certain number of years and do them all.  Then show the work.  Not just some "random" QBs that aren't really random but chosen specifically to prove yourself.  I imagine the data will show something similar but you'll have more than just a few outliers.  That's because most QBs that make it to the NFL never become franchise QBs.  This is true and has always been true.  So really, the data is meaningless because you aren't showing anything that people don't already know.

 

As for me... I think Allen has improved a great deal already.  He just needs to continue.  If he plateaus where he is at now then he isn't going to make it to where we want him to.  I don't think he is anywhere near his plateau though.

Edited December 28, 2019 by Scott7975

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

7 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

You imply Allen sucks and will always suck.  People call you out on it and then you go into... but wait I said he COULD be an outlier.  You can't criticize our players and then not take criticism for it.  That's not how this works.  Just say what you believe and freaking argue it.

 

I like how he starts paragraphs with: "Some unpleasant things to consider" and  "something else that should be of concern"  and then asks what bad things he has said of Allen? As if we are dumb and can't read through the lines.