Josh's passing stats for 2019 aren't as bad as many people think.

[FireChans]

20 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

Those are fair points as the list of players to have become good after not reaching that mark in either of their first two seasons starting is basically 0.  

 

There are a couple QB's who are more than serviceable and have inked $100 million dollar long term deals or extensions who were not good in there first two years. They would be Andy Dalton and Ryan Tannehill. Good? Not really. More like good enough. 

 

Then you have Matt Stafford. Who is sort of in the mix as well. Is he good? Or just good enough? And then there is debate as to if he was good by the end of his first two years starting or not? Hard to say. He didn't get his first meaningfull season starting till his third year. Posted a 97 QB rating. But then followed that up with a career low 79 rating in his 4th season. Next two seasons he posted 84 and 85 ratings. Despite the very luke warm start to his career he and Lions managed to sign a 3 year $53 million extension the summer of 2013 coming off of his career worst year after his 4th season. Four years later after 2 avereage and 2 above average seasons he would follow that contract up with a 5 year extension that I think at the time made him the highest paid QB.

 

I think Stafford could be an example of  a scenario we follow with Josh. Ideally he breaks out big time and we sign him to the huge 5 year contract before the end of his rookie deal. But if after 4 years say Josh has played the next two season much like his last season with ratings somewhere between 85-90  in each season I could see Josh and the Bills agreeing to a shorter 3 year deal in the $70 million dollar range. 

 

Kirk Cousins probably would have been a good example had he started more games his first three seasons. But hard to use him as a good example since he only started 9 games through his first three seasons with no season having more than 5 starts. But both Stafford and Cousins are similiar in that they did not get a lot of reps in their first two seasons and each broke out in their 3rd and 4th seasons respectively. Which is where we will see Josh over the next two seasons.

 

 

I think that’s the possibility everyone fails to address.

 

What if Josh isn’t a flat out bust or a great QB? What if he’s just decent?

[thebandit27]

23 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I think that’s the possibility everyone fails to address.

 

What if Josh isn’t a flat out bust or a great QB? What if he’s just decent?

Then you tag him. You’ve effectively got 7 years to make a decision.

[billsfan89]

On 6/7/2020 at 7:59 AM, FireChans said:

I think that’s the possibility everyone fails to address.

 

What if Josh isn’t a flat out bust or a great QB? What if he’s just decent?

 

That would almost be a bad scenario too. If Josh ends up being above average but not a top 10 QB he will command a huge contract that would hamper a team's ability to win with him. It would put the Bill's in that weird position where they have to consider the value of a decent QB relative to a big contract.

[MikeSpeed]

7 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

That would almost be a bad scenario too. If Josh ends up being above average but not a top 10 QB he will command a huge contract that would hamper a team's ability to win with him. It would put the Bill's in that weird position where they have to consider the value of a decent QB relative to a big contract.

This is why we should draft a QB every year. 

[billsfan89]

On 6/7/2020 at 8:23 AM, thebandit27 said:

Then you tag him. You’ve effectively got 7 years to make a decision.

 

The tag is expensive. You could win multiple playoff games with an above average but not top 10 QB provided he is on a rookie deal and you built a very good team around them. With a tag you are spending 30+ million a season on one position. So while the tag would alleviate the long term commitment it wouldn't hamper your team any less short term. 

[blacklabel]

I've said this a bunch of times before, but I think Josh is gonna be the type of player that can really wow you on some plays, and then make you go, "What in the eff..." on some others. I think Beane and McDermott knew that when they drafted him. They've pretty much said they can live with some WTF plays as long as his positive plays far outweigh the negative ones. 

 

Given how much he improved from '18 to '19, I can't see any reason why he won't continue to build on that. He's had quite a bit of consistency in terms of coaches and teammates, something a lot of new QBs don't get. Heading into year three of Daboll's offense, same guys up front to protect him, same playmakers around him which now include a go-to receiver in Diggs and a guy who I think is gonna be a beast in Zack Moss. It's all right there in front of him, it's up to him to take advantage. 

[first_and_ten]

On 6/6/2020 at 2:29 PM, FireChans said:

How many games did Wilson play? Watson? Lamar?

 

How many good active starting QB’s weren’t good by year two starting?

 

How many good QB’s drafted in the last 10 years weren’t good by year two starting?

 

You're right, let's just cut him.

 

[BarleyNY]

On 6/7/2020 at 10:59 AM, FireChans said:

I think that’s the possibility everyone fails to address.

 

What if Josh isn’t a flat out bust or a great QB? What if he’s just decent?

QB purgatory is truly the worst case scenario.  Good ownership that has a handle on what it has in the coaching staff is huge in that case.  I believe that there are a number of times that a marginal starting QB got a big contract simply because the GM and/or HC thought he’d be out the door with him if they moved on.  IF that’s how it goes here, then I hope the Pegulas keep McD, Beane & Co. around.

[BarleyNY]

On 6/7/2020 at 11:23 AM, thebandit27 said:

Then you tag him. You’ve effectively got 7 years to make a decision.

I get that you’re referring to using a 5th year option and two tags, but I can’t see how kicking the can down the road would work for that long.  Too much money at stake and too many other factors.  Can you imagine the impact on signing free agents?  Or the locker room discord?  Even with Allen being as raw as he was, we should know for sure by end of year 4.  Even with some mitigating circumstances (like lost time due to injury) I definitely can’t see this going past five years without a long term commitment or parting ways. 

[Billl]

1 hour ago, BarleyNY said:

I get that you’re referring to using a 5th year option and two tags, but I can’t see how kicking the can down the road would work for that long.  Too much money at stake and too many other factors.  Can you imagine the impact on signing free agents?  Or the locker room discord?  Even with Allen being as raw as he was, we should know for sure by end of year 4.  Even with some mitigating circumstances (like lost time due to injury) I definitely can’t see this going past five years without a long term commitment or parting ways. 

Yeah, that’s essentially the Redskins model.  Wouldn’t recommend it.

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

1 hour ago, BarleyNY said:

I get that you’re referring to using a 5th year option and two tags, but I can’t see how kicking the can down the road would work for that long.  Too much money at stake and too many other factors.  Can you imagine the impact on signing free agents?  Or the locker room discord?  Even with Allen being as raw as he was, we should know for sure by end of year 4.  Even with some mitigating circumstances (like lost time due to injury) I definitely can’t see this going past five years without a long term commitment or parting ways. 

 

Yeah. Ideally you come to terms on a three year extension like the the Lions did with Stafford. That way if the player totally bombs the next two years after signing the extension you may have some sort of out after 2 or 3 years. If he becomes elite you have a good QB at a slight discount. By making the commitment I think you are also helping the team in not creating any unnecessary confusion as to whether or not a QB and system may or may not be around for the next season.

[thebandit27]

9 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

I get that you’re referring to using a 5th year option and two tags, but I can’t see how kicking the can down the road would work for that long.  Too much money at stake and too many other factors.  Can you imagine the impact on signing free agents?  Or the locker room discord?  Even with Allen being as raw as he was, we should know for sure by end of year 4.  Even with some mitigating circumstances (like lost time due to injury) I definitely can’t see this going past five years without a long term commitment or parting ways. 

Why not? Suppose by the end of year 5 Allen is a top-15 QB and the team is competing for a championship. They’re close. Wouldn’t it make sense to buy yourself a year and keep the team together?

 

7 hours ago, Billl said:

Yeah, that’s essentially the Redskins model.  Wouldn’t recommend it.

 

Because? 
 

7 hours ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

Yeah. Ideally you come to terms on a three year extension like the the Lions did with Stafford. That way if the player totally bombs the next two years after signing the extension you may have some sort of out after 2 or 3 years. If he becomes elite you have a good QB at a slight discount. By making the commitment I think you are also helping the team in not creating any unnecessary confusion as to whether or not a QB and system may or may not be around for the next season.

The tag gives you a better out than a Bortles-like contract extension. And there’s no confusion whatsoever: you’ve got a year to prove yourself.

[machine gun kelly]

I’m not sure on drafting a QB every year, but I can see drafting one in 2021, and letting Barkley go.  Allen will already have three years under his belt and if he could just increase his completion % the same as last year, he would go from 53 to 58, to hopefully this year 63-4%.  That would be a nice leap, maybe not Brees type completion %, but another step in the right direction.

[BarleyNY]

1 hour ago, thebandit27 said:

Why not? Suppose by the end of year 5 Allen is a top-15 QB and the team is competing for a championship. They’re close. Wouldn’t it make sense to buy yourself a year and keep the team together?

.

In that case then IMO he has earned it and should get a contract commensurate with that level of success.  Much like having a HC on a series of one year contracts, doing that with your QB really would undermine him and the team.  By the end of year 4 we will know what we have in Allen.  There’s no need to dodge the difficult decision at that point.  Commit to him or wish him well.

 

There is just such a narrow path for your scenario to even make sense.  So for the next four seasons he’s going to be good enough that you want to see one more year of him, but not good enough that you don’t want to see three more years of him?  I can’t see that happening.

 

Then there’s the very high probability that Allen would refuse to sign a tender and force a real decision.  And on the slim chance he would play under two tenders, then he’d be a FA after the second tag.  You think he’d come back here after getting jerked around like that?
 

I get that it’d be a tough spot to be in, but these guys get paid well to make those decisions.  No way should this go further than one tag after the option year which leads to a LTD before that season.  If he’s not worth committing to by then, then that’s the decision.

 

One last aspect of this is that if they are not sold on Allen, then what about bringing in real competition?   Fail to do so and you risk losing a season or two.  Do it and you risk QB controversy and a divided locker room.

[Billl]

3 hours ago, thebandit27 said:

Because?

It hasn’t exactly worked out well.  They had a very good QB, but they decided to string him along, but they certainly didn’t save any money in so doing.  They gave up a lot of assets, both in picks and a player for Alex Smith.  It failed.  They tried Case Keenum.  It failed.  They drafted a QB early in the first round a year ago, and people were already calling for them to give him the Josh Rosen treatment.

 

Buffalo has this season to decide on Allen without turning into a soap opera.  If they decline they fifth year option, you’ve got your answer.

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

The improvements from year 1 to year two are encouraging. His running and intermediate passing can be exciting. I’m confident in converting a 3rd and 15 with him.
 

Everyone agrees the deep ball needs to improve. The problem with that is that EVERYONE knows that, so defenses are able to leave the top open until it’s a consistent threat. The short/intermediate plays and even the running game will improve, in theory, if this happens. 
 

my concern is that he just doesn’t have the ability to be consistently accurate deep no matter how hard he works to improve it. I say that because it seems like something a QB with the strongest throwing arm would have been working on already. Also, I remember thinking the same thing about EJ. If he could just connect on a couple of those deep balls instead of them sailing out of bounds his numbers would be great! 
 

that being said, Josh is an anomaly when it comes to QB development since he didn’t play at a big school and was thrown into the fire by complete mismanagement by Beane/McDermott year one. So I have hope he can put it all together this year. 

[thebandit27]

1 hour ago, Billl said:

It hasn’t exactly worked out well.  They had a very good QB, but they decided to string him along, but they certainly didn’t save any money in so doing.  They gave up a lot of assets, both in picks and a player for Alex Smith.  It failed.  They tried Case Keenum.  It failed.  They drafted a QB early in the first round a year ago, and people were already calling for them to give him the Josh Rosen treatment.

 

Buffalo has this season to decide on Allen without turning into a soap opera.  If they decline they fifth year option, you’ve got your answer.

What exactly was the problem in Washington? Was it that they tagged Cousins or that they chose to let him go so that they could trade a pick and hand $93M to Smith?

 

The tag wasn’t the issue at all.

[Billl]

27 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

What exactly was the problem in Washington? Was it that they tagged Cousins or that they chose to let him go so that they could trade a pick and hand $93M to Smith?

 

The tag wasn’t the issue at all.

Washington literally did everything wrong.  They had a good QB, but decided he wasn’t good enough to commit to long term.  Instead of letting him go or trading him, they decided to piss him off and franchise him.  They wound up paying him a ton of money and were left with nothing to show for it.  They wound up trading assets for a similar player who was older, and his leg fell off.  They had to panic draft a QB, and the early returns are terrible.  Basically they’ve invested as much or more into the position than anyone, and they’ve got Dwayne Haskins to show for it.

[thebandit27]

6 minutes ago, Billl said:

Washington literally did everything wrong.  They had a good QB, but decided he wasn’t good enough to commit to long term.  Instead of letting him go or trading him, they decided to piss him off and franchise him.  They wound up paying him a ton of money and were left with nothing to show for it.  They wound up trading assets for a similar player who was older, and his leg fell off.  They had to panic draft a QB, and the early returns are terrible.  Basically they’ve invested as much or more into the position than anyone, and they’ve got Dwayne Haskins to show for it.

Revisionist history here. Cousins was not pissed off; he gladly signed the tag...twice. He was negotiating with Washington the entire time, but their last offer to him didn’t meet what he believed he could get on the open market. They didn’t want to pay him $30M per year so they didn’t. That’s all. Do you honestly believe that he wouldn’t have re-signed in Washington had they made him the game’s highest paid QB?

[K-9]

14 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

Revisionist history here. Cousins was not pissed off; he gladly signed the tag...twice. He was negotiating with Washington the entire time, but their last offer to him didn’t meet what he believed he could get on the open market. They didn’t want to pay him $30M per year so they didn’t. That’s all. Do you honestly believe that he wouldn’t have re-signed in Washington had they made him the game’s highest paid QB?

Regarding that open market, Cousins was absolutely correct as his deal with the Vikings indicates.