A sampling of other QB’s early career stats

[Bangarang]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

To be fair it wouldn’t matter if you compare him to guys playing now either.  Each guy is different, each coaching staff they have is different, and so on.  It is fair I think to say that young QBs need to learn and develop.  

I agree

[BringBackOrton]

Let’s do Jared Goff, Wentz, Watson, Mahomes, Trubisky, and Wilson.

[Nuncha]

4 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

I agree

You agree?  What timeframe is acceptable for you?  3 starts?  lol

 

Edited October 1, 2019 by Azucho98

[BringBackOrton]

29 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said:

 

Your comparison is not only valid it's a valuable way to modulate our reaction to Allen's performance yesterday. 

 

The idea that you can't compare today's QB performance to those in the 1990's is flat out wrong.  INT's were bad in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and even in the 1990's.  QB's that threw more picks then TD's are struggling no matter the decade.  The stats on Favre you posted are particularly relevant IMO.  I suspect that after throwing 19 TD's & 24 INT's in his 3rd season there were a lot of Green Bay fans wondering if he was the guy.

 

 

 

It would be interesting to see Favre's stats on fumbles & sacks his first couple of seasons.  I bet there uglier then Allen's are.

 

 

John Elway went to the Pro Bowl throwing 18 TDs and 18 INTs in a season.

 

thanks for playing

[Buffalo Boy]

1 hour ago, Virgil said:

Add fumbles and sacks to take us out of field goal range

Yeah, Daboll needs to have him practice rolling out and chucking it out of bounds every single practice.

1 hour ago, matter2003 said:

The problem is the game has significantly changed in the last 20 years with college concepts and spread concepts to allow young QBs a much better chance of succeeding right away...look at Kyle Allen, Gardner Minshew, Daniel Jones, etc...

Kyle Allen is currently five sacks for five fumbles in two games!

Those are Peterman numbers. They won yesterday because of CMc on a HOF pace and good D.

[Buffalo Boy]

50 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

Comparing stats of guys 25 years apart is meaningless though. It tells us nothing about how Allen will develop. All it says is that certain QBs got better. 

 

Allen could go on to be great or he could go on to be another failed QB that people anointed as the savior sooner than they should’ve. Regardless of what happens, it won’t have anything to do with what Troy Aikman did in the early 90’s.

 

You’re selling hope.

     I’m selling patience. Something that a bunch of butt hurt OPs , on some pretty reactionary threads, don’t seem to have.

     It’s not a comparison of stats, it’s a few examples of other QBs who sucked in their second and third seasons and went on to success.

    Also, last I heard, Brees was still in the league!

    And the Favre comparison is just too obvious not to draw. 

50 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Let’s do Jared Goff, Wentz, Watson, Mahomes, Trubisky, and Wilson.

The Goff bashing on here was off the charts two years ago. I would argue he’s Meh. A timing/ system guy who can’t make things happen when things break down. The SB was pathetic from a Rams O perspective.

[CincyBillsFan]

49 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

John Elway went to the Pro Bowl throwing 18 TDs and 18 INTs in a season.

 

thanks for playing

 

That was pre-Madden when wins were more important then stats.  I agree that in today's NFL no QB with those stats would sniff MVP.  However, QB's with those stats could win a Super Bowl.  Which is more important?

 

 

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Boy said:

    I can’t say I was completely surprised by Josh Allen’s day yesterday. He looked like a young QB, in over his head, who was often  unable to process what he was seeing.

    When we drafted him we knew he was a project which needed a lot of fundamental development. Yesterday we saw that on full display.

     I also am not surprised by the level of dismay and panic on this board. Many on here want him to be a finished product before he’s played one full season of NFL games. 

     It got me thinking of some other QBs I’ve watched in the past who had to fight through some rough seasons as they learned on the job. 

     The first one I thought of was Drew Brees.

     His second season ‘02 : 17 TD 16 Ints. 8-8

     His third season.     ‘03:  11 TD 15 Ints. 2-9

   He balled out the next season but got the knee injury. Rivers was already behind him so he was scooped up by the Saints. 

 

      Troy Aikman is next.

       His second season ‘90: 11 TD 18 Ints  7-8

       His third season.     ‘91: 11 TD 10 Ints 7-5

    

      Then there was Brett Favre     

      His second season ‘92: 18 TD 13 Ints 8-5

      His third season.     ‘93: 19 TD 24 Ints 9-7

Farve to me is an easy comparison because they both throw stupid passes that drive everyone crazy from poor platforms.

 

       Finally, our own Beloved Jimbo

       First NFL season was ‘86. I’m including the first season because he had balled out crazy talk time in the USFL and I feel like you couldn’t really call him a Rookie with that much “ Pro” experience. 

       His first season  ‘86: 22 TD 17 Ints 4-12

       His third season ‘88: 15 TD 17 Ints 12-4

       I didn’t include the 87 scab season.

 

    I get that these aren’t apples to apples comparisons on certain levels. I think the point is still valid though. I believe any of us would take the QBs these guys became with some rough starts.?

    Josh is still a rough around the edges QB who hasn’t become comfortable with proper mechanics. He also still can’t read defenses quickly. Sometimes he can but not on a regular basis as was explicitly on display in the first half yesterday.

    I’m not giving him a pass but I do believe Daboll’s first half of the game was called poorly in terms of Josh. He needed to just get the ball out quickly, over and over. I’m ASSUMING that some of those plays were longer developing without an outlet. The line was not giving him the time to stand back there and he clearly couldn’t pull the trigger. Add the blitzing he was facing and he was toast.

    Part of that was also on the receivers not getting open. Many of us were worried about this receiving Corp going into the season and it looks like it was warranted. Brown, Beasely and Knox are the only ones I like. Andre Roberts should be getting more time. I have to believe he should be able to run a deep route better than Zay with a greater expectation of catching the ball.

     It’s a long season and we are in good position at the quarter mark. We lost a close game to a perennial SB contender. This hurt but wasn’t a surprise.

     This team needs more talent in key positions and like the aforementioned QBs who blossomed, Josh needs more time, practice, proper coaching and all important game experience. 

    Now is not the time to even BEGIN to think of pulling the plug.

 

 

 

Of course it's not time to think of pulling the plug. Are there any nuts on here implying that it is?

 

You're dead right that for some guys, it simply takes time. More time than fans would like. Are there guys who get it quickly? Yeah, a few. More take time. Some guys are NFL-ready. Some aren't. Some guys who are thought to be NFL-ready prove they actually weren't and with time improve a lot.

 

From minute one, Allen was not considered NFL-ready. He really should have had a year to sit and study and practice his mechanics. He didn't get that. And it probably set him back, as it's exactly his mechanics that he seems to be abandoning, and complex NFL defenses that coming out of Wyoming he hadn't seen much of, that are confusing him.

 

Nobody knows if he'll become a franchise guy, though there are reasonable guesses on both sides.

 

He's going to need time, and we won't know till we know.

[BringBackOrton]

8 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said:

 

That was pre-Madden when wins were more important then stats.  I agree that in today's NFL no QB with those stats would sniff MVP.  However, QB's with those stats could win a Super Bowl.  Which is more important?

 

 

Yes I see your point. Allen is much more likely to win a Super Bowl than Patrick Mahomes because all those touchdowns only matter to idiots who play video games. Good take.

14 minutes ago, Buffalo Boy said:

     I’m selling patience. Something that a bunch of butt hurt OPs , on some pretty reactionary threads, don’t seem to have.

     It’s not a comparison of stats, it’s a few examples of other QBs who sucked in their second and third seasons and went on to success.

    Also, last I heard, Brees was still in the league!

    And the Favre comparison is just too obvious not to draw. 

The Goff bashing on here was off the charts two years ago. I would argue he’s Meh. A timing/ system guy who can’t make things happen when things break down. The SB was pathetic from a Rams O perspective.

can’t win a super bowl if you don’t get there.

[Buffalo Boy]

5 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

Are there any nuts on here implying that it is?

Threads about : 

      him failing and “ his long term viability “.

 

      Bringing in Foles to get us to the SB this year.

 

      If Barkley won, Allen might be on the first bus out of town.

 

      Are you losing faith in JA.

 

All from separate thread.

 

The sky is falling for many and as usual it is ALL on the QB?

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, Bangarang said:

Why do people insist on comparing QB stats from today to those in 1990? It’s stupid.

 

Back in 1990, only 6 QBs had a passer rating over 90 and only 2 threw more than 30 TDs. Jim Kelly led the league in completion percentage with 63% and only 2 others had 60% or better.

 

You can’t compare stats from different eras and hope to make some logical comparison. 
 

Allen may be good or he may stay exactly the way he is. Troy Ailman’s stats from from nearly 30 years ago proves nothing. Blindly looking at a few stats without any kind of context also proves nothing. 

 

 

On the contrary, you can prove plenty with older stats such as Aikman's from nearly 30 years ago.

 

Yes, it's stupid to directly compare them. You're quite right about that. And you're also right that without context stats can be very misleading, especially older stats. But looking at Aikman's second year is very instructive.

 

But by any standards, today's or that era's, Aikman was still bad and still learning in his second year. It's not like having 11 TDs and 18 INTs was good back then, or even borderline acceptable. It wasn't. In his second year, that's how he looked, and then in his fourth year suddenly he had 23 TDs and 14 INTs and was "suddenly" one of the better QBs in the NFL.

 

 

[Buffalo Boy]

5 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Yes I see your point. Allen is much more likely to win a Super Bowl than Patrick Mahomes because all those touchdowns only matter to idiots who play video games. Good take.

can’t win a super bowl if you don’t get there.

All Bills fans know getting there and losing “ain’t all that” either?

 

[Thurman#1]

1 minute ago, Buffalo Boy said:

Threads about : 

      him failing and “ his long term viability “.

 

      Bringing in Foles to get us to the SB this year.

 

      If Barkley won, Allen might be on the first bus out of town.

 

      Are you losing faith in JA.

 

All from separate thread.

 

The sky is falling for many and as usual it is ALL on the QB?

 

 

Really? Are there threads about bringing in Foles? Jeez, you're right, that's nuts.

 

Threads on his long-term viability make sense. Most of what there is to say about that is that we don't know yet, but it's reasonable to bring it up. But anyone who says we know he doesn't have long-term viability is just a fruitcake.

 

He absolutely did fail this week. But we'll have to wait.

 

On the other hand, "losing faith" isn't nuts. It's just somebody's opinion. I've got no problem, especially with just asking the question.

 

Most of what you quoted there seems OK to me, but yeah, some of it is pretty wacky. Fan boards do get nutsy after really bad (and really good) games.

[Big Turk]

37 minutes ago, Buffalo Boy said:

Yeah, Daboll needs to have him practice rolling out and chucking it out of bounds every single practice.

Kyle Allen is currently five sacks for five fumbles in two games!

Those are Peterman numbers. They won yesterday because of CMc on a HOF pace and good D.

And he also threw 4 TD in his first game with 0 INTs, but you conveniently left that out. Doesn't fit your narrative right?

Edited October 1, 2019 by matter2003

[DuckyBoys]

5 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

On the contrary, you can prove plenty with older stats such as Aikman's from nearly 30 years ago.

 

Yes, it's stupid to directly compare them. You're quite right about that. And you're also right that without context stats can be very misleading, especially older stats. But looking at Aikman's second year is very instructive.

 

But by any standards, today's or that era's, Aikman was still bad and still learning in his second year. It's not like having 11 TDs and 18 INTs was good back then, or even borderline acceptable. It wasn't. In his second year, that's how he looked, and then in his fourth year suddenly he had 23 TDs and 14 INTs and was "suddenly" one of the better QBs in the NFL.

 

 

Aikman by then had what would become the greatest O line in football as well as a young Emmitt Smith  Judging any qb you have to take his whole situation into context  What he is asked to do and his supporting cast. 

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, Bangarang said:

QBs generally get better with time but the biggest question is how much better. There are a lot of factors that go into it. This is like saying Nathan Peterman can still go on to be great because Payton Manning threw a lot of interceptions his rookie year. There’s no correlation to be made here. 

 

 

Nathan Peterman can still go on to be great.

 

It's very very very very unlikely, but not out of the question. Sometimes people improve an awful lot unpredictably.

 

And while I think you're a great poster, I think you're off the mark here (not about Peterman but about what BillsBoy is saying). He's not saying that this proves that Allen will make it. He's simply pointing out the fact that many QBs who became terrific stunk it up for a while in the league first. And that Allen might be one of them but it's too early to know.

[Buffalo Boy]

4 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

And he also threw 4 TD in his first game with 0 INTs, but you conveniently left that out. Doesn't fit your narrative right?

I listen to nothing but Panther talk all day in Clt. He fumbled twice in the first game and , yeah, it was a topic of conversation. He had 3 more yesterday and the bloom is already off the rose for many here but they are happy to have the wins.

[BringBackOrton]

13 minutes ago, Buffalo Boy said:

All Bills fans know getting there and losing “ain’t all that” either?

 

Yeah they shouldn’t have put any of those guys in the HoF.

[Buffalo Boy]

5 minutes ago, DuckyBoys said:

Aikman by then had what would become the greatest O line in football as well as a young Emmitt Smith  Judging any qb you have to take his whole situation into context  What he is asked to do and his supporting cast. 

Which is why I said it isn’t apples to apples and we need some more talent at the skill position.

IMO, a number 1 WR and O line help . 

Having said that I still feel the line will improve as the season progresses.

[Thurman#1]

11 minutes ago, DuckyBoys said:

Aikman by then had what would become the greatest O line in football as well as a young Emmitt Smith  Judging any qb you have to take his whole situation into context  What he is asked to do and his supporting cast. 

 

 

Aikman already had Emmitt Smith and most of that same o-line the year he was bad.

 

1990 starting OL: Tuinei, Crawford Ker, Mark Stepnoski, John Gesek, Nate Newton.

 

1992 starting OL: Tuinei, Newton, Stepnoski, Gesek and Erik Williams

 

You're definitely right he was in a better situation, and that absolutely helped him. But he also made huge improvements in how well he made decisions, threw the football, understood defenses and generally performed as a QB. The bottom line is this, in 1990 he wasn't a good QB and by 1992, he really was.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Thurman#1