McDermott Weds Presser: Sullivan asks whether Allen is an improvement over Tyrod

[Sundancer]

1 hour ago, Seven-N-Nine said:

Hmm, not sure I have a problem with the question.  They've gone through the "process" to get Allen and build the team they want, and they are no better off...

 

Tyrod had shown his ceiling. We are 20 games into a guy we all knew was a project, and so far he's shown an ability to grow and change his game. What he's not shown is an ability to put it all together yet. Some of that will come from having 9 new starters on offense this year. Some will come from a little lack of talent. Some will come from just not being ready in all phases. 

 

Josh>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tryod

Edited November 13, 2019 by Sundancer

[billsfan_34]

58 minutes ago, Casey D said:

The problem is that there is an underlying assumption that there are a boat load of guys out there ready to play QB at a high level in the NFL.  There are not.  If you want to give up on Allen already, what is the next flavor?  There are only a handful of guys who can play QB well in the NFL, way less than 32.  You have to make absolutely sure Allen is not it before moving on.  And he has had no where near enough time yet, no matter how impatient some are.  He is making slow, two steps forward/ one step back progress so far IMO. 

I dont wanna give up- I like the kid and his upside- I just think he had a mediocre game ?

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, GG said:

 

The actual criticism was that Allen needed to continue working on his mechanics and read the defenses better. 

 

What you're describing are the results, not the inputs.

And yet, the results improved. I assume this, in your view and others', is somehow despite a concurrent improvement in 'inputs' like his 'mechanics' and 'read(ing) the defenses better'? How miraculous. Good stuff.

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

John let me tell you as a former journalist who did a lot of soccer pressers in my time you are working angles to try and get interesting stories. I think Jerry knew he was being mischievous with the question - but sometimes you have to do that. 

 

Oh and I am no Jerry Sullivan fan - for a journalist and columnist his actual writing is beyond bad. 

But Gunner, Jerry's idea of an interesting story is to throw someone under the bus, so he asks these loaded questions.   How about any of these questions:

 

When you're reviewing with Josh his play against the Browns, what do you tell him about:

 

1. Staying in the pocket?

2.  Recognizing the blitz packages?

3.  Anticipating breaks and making quicker throws?

4.  Game preparation?

 

McDermott is wise to Sully's bs and declines to answer questions designed to trap him.   I Sully would ask questions like the ones I just listed, he and we might learn some football and might learn what's going on with Allen.  THAT would make an interesting story.  

[Mickey]

I'm not sure I accept the premise about the stats being identical. Tyrod's fourth quarters were nearly always terrible, especially when he had the ball late with a chance to win it with a score or to seal a victory by running out the clock. Even with a "bad" game Allen had us in position to extend the game to OT if our kicker wasn't over the hill. 

[HappyDays]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

He was very reminiscent of Tyrod against Cleveland though. 

 

I just don't see the similarity at all. I watched the Cleveland game again last night and yes he bailed on a few clean pockets early. But he had a number of anticipation throws and Tyrod never really got to that point. Tyrod got worse every season. Allen keeps getting better, although the improvement is not linear.

 

I never wanted us to draft Allen because he had so many issues coming out of college. Poor accuracy, poor decision making, poor pocket presence, you name it. It was never going to be a quick fix. Since his rookie season he has made substantial improvements in turnovers, short accuracy, reading defenses, and pocket presence. I would say he still needs to get much better at deep accuracy and moderately better at processing speed and pocket presence. But overall he is not the same player he is at Wyoming. Now the overarching message is that Allen needs to be more consistent, NOT that he isn't capable of doing the things he needs to do to make it in the NFL. I guess I'm just wondering what everyone expected.

 

Before we drafted Allen my opinion was he should sit for 2 years before he even sees the field. This regime decided to let him learn on the fly. Considering how raw he was out of college I'm not expecting him to be a finished product yet. He keeps cleaning up one flaw at a time, and if he keeps up with that trajectory he'll be great. This offseason I hope he works on deep accuracy and slowly but surely learns to trust what he sees. Even some of his completions he's half pump faking because he doesn't quite trust it. But he's already come a long way and I'm not assuming his progress has flattened out because of one game.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

 

Pretty sure you said this-

 

Josh Allen is in over his head as an NFL QB. 

 

 

I did that was a tongue in cheek response in Sunday's game thread in response to someone who was as usual jumping to "mwahh the coordinator sucks." Again - if we are talking about Sunday's game I was critical of Josh Allen. The reason I was critical is he didn't play very well. 

 

As for the other arguments you sought to lie at my door:

 

On completion percentage.... my view all off season was it needed to get better but I thought it would. Didn't think Josh was ever going to be in the elite end of precision passers but he was capable of being Big Ben and Cam Newton accurate and as such his completion percentage would likely get into that 60% range. 

 

On INTs.... I consistently said - and numerous posters @thebandit27 included will back me up o  this - that I didn't want to take out the hero ball. I thought it was a good part of Josh's game and yes there will be some "what was that?" moments but there would be as many "what was th...... great play Josh" moments to compensate. I have banged on since Tennessee about my concern that they have tried to out him in a straight jacket. I am not quite Bill Parcell "if you ain't throwing picks you ain't trying" but I am pretty close. 

 

The one criticism I have made is in the last few games I think he has generally played too safe and second guessed himself. I don't think he played poorly in the Eagles or Redskins games but it really manifested itself in a poor performance on Sunday. 

 

I know it is easier to just cast anyone who is critical in any way of Josh as being someone who hates everything he does but it is just not an accurate portrayal of where I have been on him. I didn't like his performance on Sunday and I would like to see a return to the swashbuckling Josh Allen of the first 3 weeks - after which I was actually one of the people saying "I think he is well on his way to being a franchise Quarterback." 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

I do see improvements in some spots which are encouraging.  It's not coming all together and IMO....he should be ahead of where he's at now.  
I have been wait and see all season but man...our offense hasn't turned the corner and I'm worried it never will.  

 

By whose measure SHOULD he be ahead of where he's at now?

 

Go back and have a look at historical QB performances across their first three seasons.

 

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

But Gunner, Jerry's idea of an interesting story is to throw someone under the bus, so he asks these loaded questions.   How about any of these questions:

 

When you're reviewing with Josh his play against the Browns, what do you tell him about:

 

1. Staying in the pocket?

2.  Recognizing the blitz packages?

3.  Anticipating breaks and making quicker throws?

4.  Game preparation?

 

McDermott is wise to Sully's bs and declines to answer questions designed to trap him.   I Sully would ask questions like the ones I just listed, he and we might learn some football and might learn what's going on with Allen.  THAT would make an interesting story.  

 

I know fans don't like the job.... but you know what sometimes the job of a journalist in this day in age is to be a provocateur. I don't much like either. It is one of the reasons I got out of the industry. But I am not going to pile on Jerry for asking that question. 

[clearwater cadet]

I'm now at the point where I get nervous every time Josh Allen touches the ball.

[DrDawkinstein]

I dont mind the question, and I dont mind McD's answer because really what CAN he say?

 

I'll tell you what he probably WANTS to say, or I hope is what he wants to say:

 

Tyrod was a 6 year vet. Allen is a 2nd year project player with 19 games under his belt. The fact Allen is statistically identical right now is a GOOD sign.

 

[Chandler#81]

23 minutes ago, Questionable said:

A lot of hate here for people who buck the status quo.

 

Revoke press passes?   Punch him in the mouth?  All because he's pointing out the obvious? 

 

He's your pick McDermott.   At some point you are going to need to own up to his bad play and people want to hear more of an answer than its the process, or the mind growth set.  

 

McDermott consistently points to the short and intermediate passes as some kind proof Allen is improving.   Check downs to pad stats isn't growth.  Accurately and consistently delivering slants to give receivers YAC is growth.  Improvement on ball placement is growth.  Connecting with the deep ball once or twice a game to back off the defense is growth. 

 

Its clear this team doesn't really have an offensive identity.  McDermott has made that clear.  If we have to throw 100 times we will.   If we have to run 100 times we will. 

 

Its clear the game plan against Cleveland was to expose them in the passing game.   That was the game plan and McDermott was on board with it.   Allen under delivered. 

 

What I hate is the smoke and mirrors.   He had a bad game McDermott, admit it. He's not progressing the way you'd like him to McDermott, admit it. 

 

Unfortunately with the upcoming schedule looming on the horizon, and lack of progress from Allen, McDermott is going to come under a lot more fire from the media with each passing loss. 

 

The line of questioning isn't going to get any easier, especially after a 6-2 start and serious playoff aspirations dwindling.

 

Its a matter of time before the national media begins to apply pressure on McDermott and Allen. 

 

Do we crash and burn with Allen or make a Qb switch to save a promising season with playoffs aspirations?   That's going to be the national media narrative if we lose to Miami and Denver.  

 

 

Oh yeah. You’re gonna work out just fine here.?

[Royale with Cheese]

4 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

By whose measure SHOULD he be ahead of where he's at now?

 

Go back and have a look at historical QB performances across their first three seasons.

 

 

You can't use historical QB performances because the game evolves.  You look at current trends.

It's the same reason you don't compare Babe Ruth to Mike Trout.  Mike Trout is the best player probably in the last 20 years and if you only look at stats...he's nowhere close to Ruth.

 

The first thing would be for someone to produce more TD's than putting the ball on the ground and in the hands of the other teams.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Chandler#81 said:

Oh yeah. You’re gonna work out just fine here.?

 

Well he certainly fits in with the overly vocal negative set, that's for sure.

 

[Shaw66]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I know fans don't like the job.... but you know what sometimes the job of a journalist in this day in age is to be a provocateur. I don't much like either. It is one of the reasons I got out of the industry. But I am not going to pile on Jerry for asking that question. 

I don't mind if he's a provocateur in what he writes.   I mind when his objective when interviewing is to set up his interviewee, to trap him into saying something that will make it easy for Jerry to go after him. 

 

If he actually wants to write a column about Josh being no better than Tyrod, he can write the column.   It's his opinion, and he can say it and try to defend it he wants.   But he knows, knows for a certainty, that a legitimate column on the subject would come out concluding that Tyrod wasn't improving and Josh is, Josh is younger, Josh has a bigger arm, etc. etc. etc.   He KNOWS that.  He asked the question to see whether McD would say something that Jerry could attack.   That's just lazy journalism.  

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I just don't see the similarity at all. I watched the Cleveland game again last night and yes he bailed on a few clean pockets early. But he had a number of anticipation throws and Tyrod never really got to that point. Tyrod got worse every season. Allen keeps getting better, although the improvement is not linear.

 

The regression vs progression stuff is not relevant to the comparison I was making though. Because I was just talking Sunday in isolation. And I am not even saying he didn't make some nice throws on Sunday. He did. But there were too many plays there to be made with open guys that he didn't make because he bailed or didn't see them or held it too long and was late on the throw. Quite like Tyrod when he actually threw it on time other than the deep balls he was pretty accurate. Those were the similarities to me. But I have been clear I am talking that one performance. If I genuinely thought he was Tyrod revisited I would be all for moving on already by about game 20 of Tyrod (Cincy year 2 which must have been about game 20) I knew he wasn't the guy and was ready to move on. I am far from at that point with Josh. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Royale with Cheese said:

 

You can't use historical QB performances because the game evolves.  You look at current trends.

It's the same reason you don't compare Babe Ruth to Mike Trout.  Mike Trout is the best player probably in the last 20 years and if you only look at stats...he's nowhere close to Ruth.

 

The first thing would be for someone to produce more TD's than putting the ball on the ground and in the hands of the other teams.

 

By historical, I mean the likes of Roethlisberger, Rivers and the like.

 

And he has more TD than Turnovers.

 

 

[Gugny]

2 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

You can't use historical QB performances because the game evolves.  You look at current trends.

It's the same reason you don't compare Babe Ruth to Mike Trout.  Mike Trout is the best player probably in the last 20 years and if you only look at stats...he's nowhere close to Ruth.

 

The first thing would be for someone to produce more TD's than putting the ball on the ground and in the hands of the other teams.

 

Babe Ruth used steroids.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by Gugny

[Royale with Cheese]

45 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Okay. You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with everything you just posted. ?

 

We have a bad offense.  We moved on from Taylor because we wanted more from the QB position and it's not happening right now.  We have only 2 games this year where our offense has scored more than 2 offensive TD's?  That's pretty bad.

[Ramza86]

Its an awful question. lol