Seahawks-Browns discussed Wilson for 2018 #1

[Beast]

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

It’s really not that far fetched an argument. I’d take Allen over Jones but Jones had some real impressive games as a rookie. He threw for more TDS than Josh and about the same amount of yards in his rookie year in less starts.

 

Typical.

 

I guess you forgot who Josh Allen was surrounded by his rookie season.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Binghamton Beast

[newcam2012]

57 minutes ago, MJS said:

 

 

 

Jones was so great he got his team to 4 wins.

 

Josh Allen is better than Jones. He had more TD's and less INT's, oh and led his team to 6 more wins. Trading him for Jones would be idiotic.

I think it's far too early to say. Both have big time upside. Jones looked good but in a very small sample. Josh seems to be developing well. There just isn't enough there to concretely make a valid or invalid argument. I would take Wilson and Watson ahead of Josh. Both have that "it" factor. Obviously, Mahomes too. It's a pass on Lamar. He still limited in the passing game. I think defenses will catch up to him. Remember RG3 and Kap. No to Dak. I think he is average at best. A big yes to Wetz. He is a stud and proven when healthy. I'd take my chances. Just my opinion.

Edited May 14, 2020 by newcam2012

[formerlyofCtown]

2 hours ago, CorkScrewHill said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/05/14/could-russell-wilson-be-traded-by-the-seahawks/

 

In hindsight the Browns should have taken it. Got me thinking which QBs would I trade straight-up for Josh Allen

 

KC - Mahommes (YES!)

LV - Carr (platued - no)

Denver - Lock (less proven than JA and less skilled - No)

SD - Taylor (No)

 

Indy - Rivers (downside of career - No)

Houston - Watson (Not 100% convinced  but odds of his success are better - Yes)

Jacksonville - Minschew (lower upside - No)

Tennessee - Tannihill (not as good as appeared last year - No)

 

Pittsburgh - Rothliesberger (downside of career / injury - No)

Baltimore - Jackson (not convinced he will be long-term great - but reluctant Yes)

Cleveland - Mayfield (Attitude / size - No)

Cincy - Burrow (Not proven - could be amazing or bust - Intrigued but pass)

 

NE - Stidham (Less athletic - No)

Jets - Darnold (more polished coming out of college, but has performed worse than JA so far; JA has higher ceiling - No)

Miami - Tua (Injury / not proven - Interesting but pass)

 

Eagles - Wentz (can't stay healthy - No)

Cowboys - Prescott (higher cost and less upside - No)

Redskins - Haskins (Just No)

Giants - Jones (Similar weaknesses to Josh with less upside - No)

 

Bears - Trubisky (Just No)

Packers - Rodgers (Prima-donna / downside of career - No)

Lions - Stafford (Never been abe to put it all together - No)

Vikings - Cousins (huge price for solid but not spectacular results - No)

 

Falcons - Ryan (I like his game, but closer to end than start of his career - tough choice but I would pass)

Saints - Brees (I love Brees but looking to retire soon - No)

Panthers - Bridgewater (placeholder till next guy IMHO - No)

Bucs - Brady (GOAT, but an old GOAT - No)

 

49ers - Garrapolo (never too impressed - No)

Rams - Goff (seems to have hit season and looks like a steady but not great QB - No)

Seahawks - Wilson (great leader / great player -- Yes)

Cardinals - Murray (was impressive as a rookie - I would be fine either way though I love Josh's size)

 

 

 

It would be difficult to pass on Mahommes and Wilson but at this point there is no one else I would consider.  

I happen to like our guy enough that I wouldn't trade him.

[Bangarang]

7 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Not acknowledging that Lamar Jackson is a RB is silly.

 

Still going to bury your head in the sand on this? Yikes
 

Quote

 

I've given you as much substance as I choose to.  I've watch both players in multiple games and I'd rather have Josh Allen as my long-term QB than Lamar Jackson.

 

You’ve literally given me no substance so if that’s as much as you’re willing to give then it would just be easier to say you’re a Bills homer and you’d rather put your hopes on Allen. You’d sound less ridiculous that way.

 

Quote

 

Again ... Jackson had a fantastic season.  My opinion is simply that he'll never come close to doing it again and that if we fast forward to 2025, Josh Allen will be a top 5 QB in the league and Jackson will be a backup.  Again .. my opinion.

 

My opinion is based on the eye test and history.  Because history has given us a lot of running QBs who've had limited regular season success and short-lived careers as starters.

 

Josh will be better.  Period.

So you want to rely on history for proving your opinion about Lamar but you’ll happily ignore history that proves Allen won’t be as good as you think? I give up. You have your opinion. I think it’s silly but you can think what you like.

[formerlyofCtown]

10 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

Allen is just one hit away from serious trouble too..

 

He definitely has the talent to do it. 

 

Yes the NFL could suspend him for hurting a DB.  He could also hurt his wrist stiff arming a DE into the dirt.?

[MJS]

20 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

Wins still aren’t a QB stat and just blindly throwing them out there with literally no other context is stupid. 
 

Are we judging QBs based on a one year sample size now? Do we not take coaching into consideration? Do you think Freddie Kitchens was a good coach and maximized all the talent his team had? Did Mayfield suddenly become less talented? Does context matter at all to you?

 

One could easily argue that in regards to rookie years, Daniel Jones was by far better than Allen. 
 

Even Jones’ rookie stats weren’t far off from Allen’s sophomore season and I’m sure the Giants are only expecting him to get better. It’s probably not as silly as you think.

 

So I'm supposed to disregard wins because it isn't a QB stat. But I'm supposed to consider the head coach, coordinator, and schemes when judging a QB. I should also ignore rushing stats (even though that's a huge part of Josh's game, especially in the red zone). I should also penalize Josh Allen when comparing him to other QB's because he has a good (defensive) coach and continuity and more talent around him.

 

I'm also supposed to compare only Josh's rookie year to Jones's rookie year (again, ignoring rushing stats), and in this instance not consider the talent around him. I should also assume that Jones will progress, even though there are plenty of examples of sophmore QB's struggling.

 

It's crazy the lengths we have to go to in order to de-legitimize Josh Allen.

 

There's no world where Beane would ever consider trading Josh Allen for Daniel Jones. Stupid, stupid trade proposal.

[formerlyofCtown]

16 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Not acknowledging that Lamar Jackson is a RB is silly.

 

I've given you as much substance as I choose to.  I've watch both players in multiple games and I'd rather have Josh Allen as my long-term QB than Lamar Jackson.

 

Again ... Jackson had a fantastic season.  My opinion is simply that he'll never come close to doing it again and that if we fast forward to 2025, Josh Allen will be a top 5 QB in the league and Jackson will be a backup.  Again .. my opinion.

 

My opinion is based on the eye test and history.  Because history has given us a lot of running QBs who've had limited regular season success and short-lived careers as starters.

 

Josh will be better.  Period.

Lamar Jackson is a DB.  I saw that he got signed at that position as a UDFA.

4 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

Still going to bury your head in the sand on this? Yikes
 

 

You’ve literally given me no substance so if that’s as much as you’re willing to give then it would just be easier to say you’re a Bills homer and you’d rather put your hopes on Allen. You’d sound less ridiculous that way.

 

So you want to rely on history for proving your opinion about Lamar but you’ll happily ignore history that proves Allen won’t be as good as you think? I give up. You have your opinion. I think it’s silly but you can think what you like.

History has a tendency of doing just that.  I think Lamar will be alright though.  Josh Allen will be better.

Edited May 14, 2020 by formerlyofCtown

[Warcodered]

16 minutes ago, MJS said:

 

So I'm supposed to disregard wins because it isn't a QB stat. But I'm supposed to consider the head coach, coordinator, and schemes when judging a QB. I should also ignore rushing stats (even though that's a huge part of Josh's game, especially in the red zone). I should also penalize Josh Allen when comparing him to other QB's because he has a good (defensive) coach and continuity and more talent around him.

 

I'm also supposed to compare only Josh's rookie year to Jones's rookie year (again, ignoring rushing stats), and in this instance not consider the talent around him. I should also assume that Jones will progress, even though there are plenty of examples of sophmore QB's struggling.

 

It's crazy the lengths we have to go to in order to de-legitimize Josh Allen.

 

There's no world where Beane would ever consider trading Josh Allen for Daniel Jones. Stupid, stupid trade proposal.

You forgot to include the dangers of Allen being a runner while still disregarding the benefits it brought.

[Protocal69]

12 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Yep. No one.

 

Jones has an equally below average receiving corps last season and still managed better numbers than Allen.... I wonder how many actually watched Daniel Jones play last season... I’m going to guess none of the people claiming Jones for Allen is stupidity. 

Golden Tate by himself was better than the whole receiving Corp had Josh Rookie year. That's not counting Evan Ingram and the running/ receiving

threat in Saquan Barkley 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Protocal69

[BuffaloBills1998]

2 hours ago, JaCrispy said:

I would take Daniel Jones over Josh Allen straight up! He looked outstanding as a rookie, without all-Star WRs, and is only gonna get better...?

That’s a joke right?

1 hour ago, JaCrispy said:

No need my friend...just go watch the tape...and furthermore, Jones, as a rookie, was better than Allen in virtually every major statistical category...

Your just a hater of Allen

[FireChans]

38 minutes ago, MJS said:

 

So I'm supposed to disregard wins because it isn't a QB stat. But I'm supposed to consider the head coach, coordinator, and schemes when judging a QB. I should also ignore rushing stats (even though that's a huge part of Josh's game, especially in the red zone). I should also penalize Josh Allen when comparing him to other QB's because he has a good (defensive) coach and continuity and more talent around him.

 

I'm also supposed to compare only Josh's rookie year to Jones's rookie year (again, ignoring rushing stats), and in this instance not consider the talent around him. I should also assume that Jones will progress, even though there are plenty of examples of sophmore QB's struggling.

 

It's crazy the lengths we have to go to in order to de-legitimize Josh Allen.

 

There's no world where Beane would ever consider trading Josh Allen for Daniel Jones. Stupid, stupid trade proposal.

I don’t think there’s a world where Gettleman trades Jones for Josh either. They are far different QB’s.

 

There are also plenty of examples of third year QB’s struggling, FYI.

[Bangarang]

25 minutes ago, MJS said:

 

So I'm supposed to disregard wins because it isn't a QB stat. But I'm supposed to consider the head coach, coordinator, and schemes when judging a QB.

Only if you want to be smart and taken seriously.

 

25 minutes ago, MJS said:

I should also ignore rushing stats (even though that's a huge part of Josh's game, especially in the red zone). I should also penalize Josh Allen when comparing him to other QB's because he has a good (defensive) coach and continuity and more talent around him.

 

When did I say to ignore rushing stats or penalize Allen for having a good coach? Are you going to argue points I never made?

 

25 minutes ago, MJS said:

I'm also supposed to compare only Josh's rookie year to Jones's rookie year (again, ignoring rushing stats), and in this instance not consider the talent around him.

 

Again, not once did I say to ignore rushing stats. In fact, I’ve argued the opposite. 
 

Nor did I tell you to ignore the talent around him. In fact, that’s what I’ve been saying. Context matters. Arguing the amount of games Jones won as a rookie as if it proves some kind of point without factoring anything else is stupid. It’s equivalent to criticizing Allen for only winning 5 games as a rookie without taking anything else into consideration. 
 

What I’m saying shouldn’t be complicated and I’m not sure why you seem so confused by it.

 

25 minutes ago, MJS said:

I should also assume that Jones will progress, even though there are plenty of examples of sophmore QB's struggling.

 

You can assume what you want. Did you think Allen would get worse or stay the same after his rookie year? Probably not. 

 

25 minutes ago, MJS said:

 

It's crazy the lengths we have to go to in order to de-legitimize Josh Allen.

 

That’s not what I’m doing but okay. Your responses thus far have shown me you don’t know what’s going on here so I’ll just consider this par for the course.

 

25 minutes ago, MJS said:

There's no world where Beane would ever consider trading Josh Allen for Daniel Jones. Stupid, stupid trade proposal.

You do understand this discussion isn’t based on reality right? 
 

Do you think there’s a world where Andy Reid would trade Mahomes straight up for Allen? That’s kinda what we’re discussing here. Try and keep up.

[JaCrispy]

1 hour ago, MJS said:

 

QB is BY FAR the most important position in football and for winning games.

 

Would you have traded Allen for Mayfield after their rookie years? Probably. But after another year that trade looks stupid. Similarly, it would be silly to trade for Jones after his rookie year especially since his stats were not better than Allen's.

How much "tape" have you watched?

Enough to know he is a more efficient QB than Josh in just about every major statistical category...and if you watched him play you would know that too- there is really no debating this...

Edited May 14, 2020 by JaCrispy

[MJS]

5 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I don’t think there’s a world where Gettleman trades Jones for Josh either. They are far different QB’s.

 

There are also plenty of examples of third year QB’s struggling, FYI.

I don't disagree.

2 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

Enough to know he is a more efficient QB than Josh in just about every major statistical category...and if you watched him play you would know that too- there is really no debating this...

Can you elaborate?

[MJS]

33 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Yep. No one.

 

Jones has an equally below average receiving corps last season and still managed better numbers than Allen.... I wonder how many actually watched Daniel Jones play last season... I’m going to guess none of the people claiming Jones for Allen is stupidity. 

He didn't manage better numbers than Allen unless you completely remove rushing stats, which is a mistake. Allen would have more passing TD's if he didn't run for TD's so much in the red zone.

[JaCrispy]

20 minutes ago, MJS said:

I don't disagree.

Can you elaborate?

I can but I’m currently watching “Office” reruns...

Edited May 14, 2020 by JaCrispy

[FireChans]

5 minutes ago, MJS said:

I don't disagree.

Can you elaborate?

The overarching point is that there are a handful of young QBs in the NFL that have not proven enough to be considered stars, but also have shown enough good things that their teams are quite comfortable and happy with them so far

 

Allen, Jones, Darnold, Mayfield, and Murray fall into this. Some would argue that Goff/Wentz are on the tail end of these good graces for one reason or another. The only proven really good QB’s who are still relatively young are Watson, Mahomes, Wilson and on the bottom rung Dak. 

 

I would understand the argument of not trading Allen for Dak and below. I would also understand the argument for not trading Dak or Jones or Mayfield for Allen. The only reasonable answer is that everyone would trade Allen for Wilson, Watson or Mahomes.

[BuffaloBills1998]

14 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

Enough to know he is a more efficient QB than Josh in just about every major statistical category...and if you watched him play you would know that too- there is really no debating this...

Yes there is reason to debate this, Jones has a weak arm and is not accurate. He played well against a bad Buccaneers defense oh boy good for him. Josh is a far better QB and has taken us to the playoffs while the giants went 4-12 and they had to put Eli back in for the second half of the season. Jones is a career back up at best

Edited May 14, 2020 by BuffaloBills1998

[MJS]

10 minutes ago, FireChans said:

The overarching point is that there are a handful of young QBs in the NFL that have not proven enough to be considered stars, but also have shown enough good things that their teams are quite comfortable and happy with them so far

 

Allen, Jones, Darnold, Mayfield, and Murray fall into this. Some would argue that Goff/Wentz are on the tail end of these good graces for one reason or another. The only proven really good QB’s who are still relatively young are Watson, Mahomes, Wilson and on the bottom rung Dak. 

 

I would understand the argument of not trading Allen for Dak and below. I would also understand the argument for not trading Dak or Jones or Mayfield for Allen. The only reasonable answer is that everyone would trade Allen for Wilson, Watson or Mahomes.

I agree with that.

 

I'm not saying that Jones is bad. I think he's probably pretty good. I just think it's crazy that fans would trade Allen for Jones straight up. Allen is slightly more proven and has taken his team further. Jones is pretty much an unknown. Both have shown potential and upside.

[Saxum]

1 hour ago, Binghamton Beast said:

 

Typical.

 

I guess you forgot who Josh Allen was surrounded by his rookie season.

 

No he hasn't.  There are hundreds of posts criticizing Bills on quality of  WRs.  Actually there are hundreds of posts criticizing Bills on almost any topic.