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

[Lurker]

IMO, Josh will live or die on how well (and quickly) he is able to recognize blitz pressure and find the appropriate hot read.   The games he's struggled in have been against teams confusing his initial reads, versus those that did not.    It was the same at Wyoming.   He has not handled pass rush pressure well in the past and it is now becoming known around the league as the way to beat him.

 

I'm not sure, other than more experience, how a QB learns to overcome this weakness.   It may simply be time in the seat, or it could be an irrepariable flaw in his game.    That alone is enough to keep the rest of the season interesting, irregardless of the playoff picture...

[gobills1212]

2 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

The 1st thing i thought of after hearing this was how JS chooses which one of his 30 accounts hes going to sign in and post as here;)

Edited November 13, 2019 by gobills1212

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

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." 

 

I'm going to give you credit for being a lot smarter than this post. 

 

There is NOTHING about this staff, their approach to football in general, or their methodology in building this franchise that would EVER suggest they'd be fine with Allen throwing away games and sacrificing wins at the expense of developing him as a passer and long-term answer at QB. Their approach with Allen and this season's offense is ENTIRELY consistent with the 'process' that so many of you seem to not understand: they are balancing the very real short term necessities of winning NFL games with a longer term strategy of building a team and QB capable of sustained success. Your thesis that Allen's hit some regression point while ignoring the composition of this season's games, where the Bills find themselves record-wise, and the staff's generally conservative approach to bringing along young players...frankly it's reactionary. 

 

Whether or not they will be successful is certainly up for debate. What kills me is the focus on certain unattractive data points without regard for the wider focus...namely is this (admittedly old-school) type of team building, considering our personnel, the right method as opposed to a team like Baltimore who have found a measure of success prioritizing certain offensive schemes that imo have equivalent associated risks ie Greg Roman Taylor/Kaep/now Jackson et al which leave a narrower window offensively?

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

2 minutes ago, gobills1212 said:

The 1st thing i thought of after hearing this was how JS chooses which one of his 30 accounts hes going to sign in and post as here;)

I think he's on as Scott Law today

[ngbills]

 

 

 

 

I see plenty of plays supposedly Tyrod would never be able to make...

 

 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

11 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

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

 

And he has more TD than Turnovers.

 

 

 

Roethlisberger and Rivers are 15 years ago.  The rules have changed a lot since then too....the hitting a "defenseless WR" was inputted.  You can't crush a WR going over the middle anymore...you can't hit them too hard.  Earlier, you could basically kill them...no flag.  Passing numbers started exploding around 2010.

 

Why is it you're being more patient with Allen but not Oliver?  If you want to do an accurate comparison to Oliver, use Kawaan Short who was also an undersized DT who didn't make a huge impact his first year.  Now he's one of the best in the league. 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Roethlisberger and Rivers are 15 years ago.  The rules have changed a lot since then too....the hitting a "defenseless WR" was inputted.  You can't crush a WR going over the middle anymore...you can't hit them too hard.  Earlier, you could basically kill them...no flag.  Passing numbers started exploding around 2010.

 

Why is it you're being more patient with Allen but not Oliver?  If you want to do an accurate comparison to Oliver, use Kawaan Short who was also an undersized DT who didn't make a huge impact his first year.  Now he's one of the best in the league. 

 

 

Because Oliver isn't even on the field contributing.

 

Let me flip that around: why are you giving a guy who isn't even playing a pass versus a guy who actually IS contributing?

 

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

I'm going to give you credit for being a lot smarter than this post. 

 

There is NOTHING about this staff, their approach to football in general, or their methodology in building this franchise that would EVER suggest they'd be fine with Allen throwing away games and sacrificing wins at the expense of developing him as a passer and long-term answer at QB. Their approach with Allen and this season's offense is ENTIRELY consistent with the 'process' that so many of you seem to not understand: they are balancing the very real short term necessities of winning NFL games with a longer term strategy of building a team and QB capable of sustained success. Your thesis that Allen's hit some regression point while ignoring the composition of this season's games, where the Bills find themselves record-wise, and the staff's generally conservative approach to bringing along young players...frankly it's reactionary. 

 

Whether or not they will be successful is certainly up for debate. What kills me is the focus on certain unattractive data points without regard for the wider focus...namely is this (admittedly old-school) type of team building, considering our personnel, the right method as opposed to a team like Baltimore who have found a measure of success prioritizing certain offensive schemes that imo have equivalent associated risks ie Greg Roman Taylor/Kaep/now Jackson et al which leave a narrower window offensively?

 

It isn't reactionary. It is how I have argued for them developing Josh all along based on the situations in which he thrives and the situations in which he struggles. 

 

And I am the last person asking for us to do what Baltimore have done despite being a massive fan of both John Harbaugh and Greg Roman. I think while Harbaugh's approach is novel "why do we keep looking for Dan Marino let's zig while the league zags?" the reality is the reason teams keep looking for Dan Marino is that ultimately the NFL always seems to revert to type after these funky offenses be it the triple option or the pistol or the wildcat and eventually to have long term success you have to win from the pocket. It is one of the things the Bills HAVE done well with Josh. They have definitely improved his comfort level in the pocket. Sunday was an outlier in that respect on the season in that he looked more like the fidgety guy in the pocket desperate to escape we saw early last season. 

[Gugny]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

I think while Harbaugh's approach is novel "why do we keep looking for Dan Marino let's zig while the league zags?" the reality is the reason teams keep looking for Dan Marino is that ultimately the NFL always seems to revert to type after these funky offenses be it the triple option or the pistol or the wildcat and eventually to have long term success you have to win from the pocket. It is one of the things the Bills HAVE done well with Josh.

 

Why Dan Marino?  Guy's got dandruff and only went to one Super Bowl in 50 years and lost it.  I'd rather look for Joe Montana, personally.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Gugny said:

 

Why Dan Marino?  Guy's got dandruff and only went to one Super Bowl in 50 years and lost it.  I'd rather look for Joe Montana, personally.

 

Ask Harbaugh he said it, not me. 

[Scott7975]

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.  

 

Why should he be ahead of where he's at now?  He hasn't had the coaching that these other QBs have had throughout their careers.  The dude has been playing almost entirely on talent.  Now he is learning the game, hopefully from really good coaches.  The rest of the offense could use improvements in their own game too.  They are all making mistakes.  Not just Allen.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

11 minutes ago, ngbills said:

 

 

 

 

I see plenty of plays supposedly Tyrod would never be able to make...

 

 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

3 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Because Oliver isn't even on the field contributing.

 

Let me flip that around: why are you giving a guy who isn't even playing a pass versus a guy who actually IS contributing?

 

 

Because he is on the field contributing.  He's not dominating like I thought he would but you're taking that as he's doing nothing  which is not true.  You're just being emotional about it.

Do you think Oliver had zero snaps for the last few weeks or something?

 

I'm down on Allen but not calling him a bust.  He's not been playing well.  You are already calling Oliver a bust and a wasted pick.  Am I calling Allen a bust and wasted pick right now?   Do you see the difference?

3 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

Why should he be ahead of where he's at now?  He hasn't had the coaching that these other QBs have had throughout their careers.  The dude has been playing almost entirely on talent.  Now he is learning the game, hopefully from really good coaches.  The rest of the offense could use improvements in their own game too.  They are all making mistakes.  Not just Allen.

 

What do you think McDermott meant when he said "we need our offense to take the next step"?   We got rid of Taylor because our offense couldn't take the next step even though he was our starting QB in our playoff run.  

Yeah it's not all on Allen but he's a big piece why are offense is still stuck in the mud.  

[Doc Brown]

It's a really dumb question.  I mean like a "high level I want to be relevant again" dumb.

[Gugny]

7 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Ask Harbaugh he said it, not me. 

 

Don't be salty with me!  Allen hater!

[ALLEN1QB]

They are not the same Tyrod Taylor could hit the deep ball.

[Jerry Jabber]

In regards to Sully's moronic question, Tyrod had Watkins, Woods, Hogan and Goodwin to throw to. I'd like to see Allen's numbers with those guys, compared to how Tyrod did with them. John Brown is a good WR, but IMO he's a #2 WR. I'd consider Beasley a #3 WR. I'd take Goodwin over Foster anytime. Guys like McKenzie and Foster are replaceable and haven't contributed much to the offense this year, now whether that's on Daboll, Allen or the players themselves, the Bills need better production from those players.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Jerry Jabber

[Doc Brown]

McDermott's inner monologue:  "Because Allen's ceiling is way higher than Tyrod's ever was and if Allen reaches it we'll be in the Superbowl hunt every year for a decade you blockhead."

[ROCBillsBeliever]

 

4 hours 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...

 

Hi Jerry ?‍♂️?‍♂️?‍♂️

Edited November 13, 2019 by ROCBillsBeliever
Typo: double posted my entry.

[Mark Vader]

2 hours 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...

So we should have kept Peterman?