ESPN FUTURE POWER RANKINGS NEXT 3 YEARS BILLS #14

[C.Biscuit97]

14 hours ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

So you consider Field Yates and his four years as an intern with Patriots massive front office experience? Super Bowl architect right there and as for Riddick he worked with the Redskins and was one of the architects of the “dream team” in Philly when he was up for the 49ers job in 2015 the Niners fan site couldn’t trash the guy enough as long as someone is articulate even if their wrong says a lot about who you view as credible 

I just think it’s like a parent who doesn’t want to get told their baby is ugly or arguing with someone that their politics are wrong.  Allen is about as risky of a top 10 qb pick as there has ever been taken.  And he is in a great situation on our team but it’s not like he’s really light it up.  We win with defense holding us in games.  Anything less than a top 10 defense, we don’t make the playoffs.  
 

they ranked us very high in a bunch of categories.  But to non Bills fans, Allen is far and away the biggest question mark of long term success.  Like if we have to pay Allen big bucks and have to let a bunch of talent walk (we are in the easy part of the “rebuild” where everyone is cheap), can you see him carrying the team?  At this point, it’s hard to see it.  But he has probably a top 5 receiving core and a bunch of money/ high picks invested in the o line.  If he can’t become a over 60% passer (the definition of average now) and get at least 225 passing/ game, I don’t think he ever will get there.  
 

imo, if you really look at the situation, it is great.  ESPN basically said even if Allen fails to make it as a franchise guy, it’s a great situation for another guy to set up.  It’s also a shame that we don’t have better backup options because it’s over if Matt Barkley needs to play and on this team, that shouldn’t be the case. 

[eball]

36 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

But to non Bills fans, Allen is far and away the biggest question mark of long term success.  Like if we have to pay Allen big bucks and have to let a bunch of talent walk (we are in the easy part of the “rebuild” where everyone is cheap), can you see him carrying the team?  At this point, it’s hard to see it.  But he has probably a top 5 receiving core and a bunch of money/ high picks invested in the o line.  If he can’t become a over 60% passer (the definition of average now) and get at least 225 passing/ game, I don’t think he ever will get there.

 

Here’s where I continue to question your credibility.  You consistently ignore the progress Allen made from Y1 to Y2 and continue to hang your hat on his college statistics as a reason why he won’t succeed.  I’ve asked you numerous times to tell us, specifically, what about Allen’s progress thus far in the NFL, along with his obvious intangibles like leadership, tells you he has plateaued and will not continue to improve?  You can’t answer that simple question because you can’t get yourself past your post-draft bust prediction.  Riskiest top-10 QB draft pick ever?  Come on, that’s laughable.  I don’t know how Allen will perform this year but I can see an upward trajectory when it’s right in front of my face.

[DCOrange]

1 hour ago, eball said:

 

Here’s where I continue to question your credibility.  You consistently ignore the progress Allen made from Y1 to Y2 and continue to hang your hat on his college statistics as a reason why he won’t succeed.  I’ve asked you numerous times to tell us, specifically, what about Allen’s progress thus far in the NFL, along with his obvious intangibles like leadership, tells you he has plateaued and will not continue to improve?  You can’t answer that simple question because you can’t get yourself past your post-draft bust prediction.  Riskiest top-10 QB draft pick ever?  Come on, that’s laughable.  I don’t know how Allen will perform this year but I can see an upward trajectory when it’s right in front of my face.

I mean, of course he can't tell you Allen has for sure plateaued. None of us can see into the future. I won't try to put words in Biscuit's mouth, but my opinion is essentially this. Historical trends have shown that QBs statistically improve pretty significantly from Y1 to Y2. From Y3 onwards, the historical trend is that it's just up and down from there on out, ultimately evening out as being pretty much a flat line. You can find evidence of that from a lot of different sources, but Skarecrow over at Buffalo Rumblings has an article specific to Allen and what kind of progression (or in some cases, regression) we should expect from him in Y3 based on historical trends. https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2020/2/28/21155523/how-big-of-a-leap-should-buffalo-bills-expect-josh-allen-to-make-in-2020

And for reference, here was his piece where he compared 2019 Allen to what he projected for 2019 Allen (TLDR: Allen improved by pretty much exactly as much as you'd expect from a QB in Y2). https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2020/2/7/21046646/how-big-of-a-leap-did-josh-allen-take-in-2019-buffalo-quarterback

 

I think Allen has the physical tools and intangibles to make him as likely as anyone to buck the historical trends and continue making meaningful improvements to his game statistically speaking. But make no mistake, he will be an outlier if he's able to do that, and if he isn't able to do that, it will be difficult to justify giving him a long-term contract.

 

That doesn't mean the sky is falling or anything. With the defense and the offensive supporting cast we have, we can certainly win with him. And being on a cheap salary for two more years, he has plenty of time to prove himself before we have to lock him in long-term. We're in a really good spot as a franchise.

[C.Biscuit97]

1 hour ago, eball said:

 

Here’s where I continue to question your credibility.  You consistently ignore the progress Allen made from Y1 to Y2 and continue to hang your hat on his college statistics as a reason why he won’t succeed.  I’ve asked you numerous times to tell us, specifically, what about Allen’s progress thus far in the NFL, along with his obvious intangibles like leadership, tells you he has plateaued and will not continue to improve?  You can’t answer that simple question because you can’t get yourself past your post-draft bust prediction.  Riskiest top-10 QB draft pick ever?  Come on, that’s laughable.  I don’t know how Allen will perform this year but I can see an upward trajectory when it’s right in front of my face.

Dude, you don’t want to hear any point other than Allen is awesome.  But to answer (which I did before but you again pretend to not see)

 

1) has there ever been a qb in recent history that has played against worst college competition and had a least impressive resume than Allen?  He should have dominant the MWC.  Like player of the year.  He didn’t make 1st or 2nd team his last year there.  Like at Trey Lance at NDSU. As a sophomore, he had 42 tds and 0 ints while completing 66% of his passes.  
 

does that guarantee he will good in the nfl? Absolutely not.  But that’s what a top pick qb should do against lesser competition. 
 

2) he did make some improvements.  However those improvements took him up to 32nd in completion % and 30th in passing yards per game, that’s not great.

 

3) I love Allen’s attitude.  EJ had a great attitude. JP cleaned up Buffalo. Mitch Tribusky is a really nice guy who has an old car.  It doesn’t matter if you can’t play.

 

4) what starting level nfl qb won’t have gone 10-6 with our schedule and our defense?  It was a perfect situation.  In fact, we might have underachieved given how many “Easy” games that had.  
 

I really do like Allen as a guy and I would love to see him become the man.  I’m just being more realistic about the situation.  Guys don’t just magically become more accurate at the nfl level.  His best skill is running and that will lead to injuries.  He needs to win from the pocket.  I hope he does and I would love to be surprised by how good he becomes.  
 

but he is still the major question mark on this team.  

[eball]

@DCOrange thank you for at least putting something factual behind your analysis. But historical trends don’t necessarily predict the future when we are dealing with different individuals in different situations. I analyze Josh Allen based upon what I’ve seen, not what other QBs who are nothing like him have done. 

[C.Biscuit97]

1 minute ago, DCOrange said:

I mean, of course he can't tell you Allen has for sure plateaued. None of us can see into the future. I won't try to put words in Biscuit's mouth, but my opinion is essentially this. Historical trends have shown that QBs statistically improve pretty significantly from Y1 to Y2. From Y3 onwards, the historical trend is that it's just up and down from there on out, ultimately evening out as being pretty much a flat line. You can find evidence of that from a lot of different sources, but Skarecrow over at Buffalo Rumblings has an article specific to Allen and what kind of progression (or in some cases, regression) we should expect from him in Y3 based on historical trends. https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2020/2/28/21155523/how-big-of-a-leap-should-buffalo-bills-expect-josh-allen-to-make-in-2020

And for reference, here was his piece where he compared 2019 Allen to what he projected for 2019 Allen (TLDR: Allen improved by pretty much exactly as much as you'd expect from a QB in Y2). https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2020/2/7/21046646/how-big-of-a-leap-did-josh-allen-take-in-2019-buffalo-quarterback

 

I think Allen has the physical tools and intangibles to make him as likely as anyone to buck the historical trends and continue making meaningful improvements to his game statistically speaking. But make no mistake, he will be an outlier if he's able to do that, and if he isn't able to do that, it will be difficult to justify giving him a long-term contract.

 

That doesn't mean the sky is falling or anything. With the defense and the offensive supporting cast we have, we can certainly win with him. And being on a cheap salary for two more years, he has plenty of time to prove himself before we have to lock him in long-term. We're in a really good spot as a franchise.

Well said.  There’s some weird thing around Bills fans that “experts” don’t personally like Allen.  It comes down to this.  It’s really hard to believe a top 10 pick who didn’t make 1st or 2nd team in the MWC will become a great nfl qb.  If he was on another team, we would think the same way.  
 

if he does, build a statue for McBeane because they are geniuses. 

[eball]

3 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Dude, you don’t want to hear any point other than Allen is awesome.

You’re deaf. There are plenty of my posts stating quite clearly that there are no more excuses for Josh beginning this season. Get off that “you are just a homer” kick because I am just as analytical about the team as anyone. 

[C.Biscuit97]

1 minute ago, eball said:

@DCOrange thank you for at least putting something factual behind your analysis. But historical trends don’t necessarily predict the future when we are dealing with different individuals in different situations. I analyze Josh Allen based upon what I’ve seen, not what other QBs who are nothing like him have done. 

Yeah but if there is was a favorable one, you’d eat that up.  
 

So to sum up mine and ESPN’s point.  The Bills have a top 10 roster and coaching but we are worried about Allen being the answer.  

Just now, eball said:

You’re deaf. There are plenty of my posts stating quite clearly that there are no more excuses for Josh beginning this season. Get off that “you are just a homer” kick because I am just as analytical about the team as anyone. 

Sure you are.  But I say this every time, I truly do hope you’re right because I gain nothing out of being right. 

[DCOrange]

2 minutes ago, eball said:

@DCOrange thank you for at least putting something factual behind your analysis. But historical trends don’t necessarily predict the future when we are dealing with different individuals in different situations. I analyze Josh Allen based upon what I’ve seen, not what other QBs who are nothing like him have done. 

That's totally fair and I certainly hope you're ultimately proven right.

 

Also, just FWIW so I don't get lumped in as someone that has hated Allen from the get-go, I had a top 15 draft grade on him (and also said I'd be comfortable taking a chance on him in the top 10) and predicted that Buffalo would trade up into the top 10 to take him.

https://draftqbs.wordpress.com/2018-draft/josh-allen/

https://draftqbs.wordpress.com/2018-draft/2018-mock-draft/

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Yeah but if there is was a favorable one, you’d eat that up.  
 

So to sum up mine and ESPN’s point.  The Bills have a top 10 roster and coaching but we are worried about Allen being the answer.  

And the Colts, with a bigger question at QB and a lesser roster, are ranked higher.  I mean, really, who in his right mind would bet on the Colts'QB roommover the Bill's?  And the same can be said about the Steelers. Both of those teams would trade QB rooms with the Bill's in a heartbeat. 

[DCOrange]

8 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

And the Colts, with a bigger question at QB and a lesser roster, are ranked higher.  I mean, really, who in his right mind would bet on the Colts'QB roommover the Bill's?  And the same can be said about the Steelers. Both of those teams would trade QB rooms with the Bill's in a heartbeat. 

The Colts QB situation wasn't rated any higher than Buffalo's, but honestly, I wouldn't at all be surprised if teams would prefer to have a vet that they think they can count on and a couple potentially promising young QBs than just having Allen and nothing behind him. Indy probably has more flexibility to bring in a new QB as well since they haven't really hitched their wagon to a QB like Buffalo mentally has. At any rate, I think that one could go either way, which seems to be what ESPN believes as well.

 

And I think you're just flat out wrong about Pittsburgh. I think most teams would likely take Roethlisberger and future draft picks over hitching their wagon to Allen. Ben is still viewed as arguably a top 10 QB in the league or at minimum top 15.

 

The Colts situation is definitely more debatable, which is why their QB situation tied Buffalo's.

Edited July 22, 2020 by DCOrange

[C.Biscuit97]

2 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

That's totally fair and I certainly hope you're ultimately proven right.

 

Also, just FWIW so I don't get lumped in as someone that has hated Allen from the get-go, I had a top 15 draft grade on him (and also said I'd be comfortable taking a chance on him in the top 10) and predicted that Buffalo would trade up into the top 10 to take him.

https://draftqbs.wordpress.com/2018-draft/josh-allen/

https://draftqbs.wordpress.com/2018-draft/2018-mock-draft/

And just be consistent.  I wanted another team to draft Allen because I wasn’t sold on him and hate prospects like him in the 1st round (I love guys like that in later rounds, it’s why I didn’t like the Fromm pick). 
 

ive grown to really like him as a guy but I struggle to just forget all the things I worried about him because he’s a Bill. It sucks. 

[C.Biscuit97]

13 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

And the Colts, with a bigger question at QB and a lesser roster, are ranked higher.  I mean, really, who in his right mind would bet on the Colts'QB roommover the Bill's?  And the same can be said about the Steelers. Both of those teams would trade QB rooms with the Bill's in a heartbeat. 

I mean Rivers might be washed up but he did just have 4,600 yards passing and pretty much is good for 4,000 every year.

 

would I take Rivers over Allen long term? No.  But for a year? I think Rivers would be an upgrade and Brisett is a huge upgrade over Barkley.  

10 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

The Colts QB situation wasn't rated any higher than Buffalo's, but honestly, I wouldn't at all be surprised if teams would prefer to have a vet that they think they can count on and a couple potentially promising young QBs than just having Allen and nothing behind him. Indy probably has more flexibility to bring in a new QB as well since they haven't really hitched their wagon to a QB like Buffalo mentally has. At any rate, I think that one could go either way, which seems to be what ESPN believes as well.

 

And I think you're just flat out wrong about Pittsburgh. I think most teams would likely take Roethlisberger and future draft picks over hitching their wagon to Allen. Ben is still viewed as arguably a top 10 QB in the league or at minimum top 15.

 

The Colts situation is definitely more debatable, which is why their QB situation tied Buffalo's.

Basically the only reason Pittsburgh wasn’t in the playoffs was because of maybe the worst qb play in the nfl last year.  If Big Ben is average, they are a very dangerous team and he passed for 5,000 yards the previous year.

[JaCrispy]

On 7/20/2020 at 12:10 PM, Herc11 said:

This is completely asinine. 

 

- Allen leads team to playoffs, yet is scored below avg.

 

- Front office has killed it in the draft last couple years and gets scored avg

 

All this shows is that the media continues to not do real research, which should consist of actually watching.

To this point, Allen has been been below average...not sure what games you’re watching, or stats you’re looking at- but it’s pretty obvious...

[Doc]

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Watson did not make Hopkins but that wasn't quite what he said. He said he transformed Houston's offense.

 

In the two full seasons before Watson Houston averaged 19.3 points per game and 331.2 yards per game. 

 

In the two full seasons Watson has played for them it is 24.3 points per game and 362.3 yards per game. 

 

That is over 30 yards and 5 points per game Deshaun Watson has been worth to Houston. And that is with me purposely excluding 2017 where Watson started 6 games as a rookie but then blew his knee out. If you look at that season the numbers are even more staggering: 

 

The 2017 Houston Texans without Deshaun Watson were 2-8, averaging just 13 points per game and 275.1 yards per game. The 2017 Houston Texans with Deshaun Watson were 3-3, averaging 34.6 points and 394.8 yards. 

 

Yea, Deshaun Watson transformed Houston's offense, even though DeAndre Hopkins was already a stud before he got there. 

 

I think the point is more who has Allen had to rely on?  Now he's got Diggs.

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I mean Rivers might be washed up but he did just have 4,600 yards passing and pretty much is good for 4,000 every year.

 

would I take Rivers over Allen long term? No.  But for a year? I think Rivers would be an upgrade and Brisett is a huge upgrade over Barkley.  

For a year, sure, but if you're the GM for the Colts or Steelers, you'd trade in a heartbeat.   Allen is the ONLY QB on those three rosters who has the potential to be a franchise QB over the next 5-10 years.   It's a total no-brainer.

 

You tend to upset me and others because you don't share our optimism about where Allen is going, and I have to keep reminding myself of that.  I think you see the same QB I see, which is a guy who wasn't nearly good enough last season and has to be substantially better.  And I don't mean he needs better stats, because adding Diggs and Moss is going to give Allen better stats even if he doesn't improve.   He has to be a better NFL quarterback than he's been.

 

But I wanted to talk about a couple of others things that have been said here and in other threads that I think need to be de-bunked.  I don't think you, Biscuit, said them all, so what follows is a general response.  If the shoe fits, etc. 

 

First, this notion that Allen may have been one of the longest shot first round QBs in history is baloney.  Allen has extraordinary talent, brains, work ethic, etc.  That's why he was talked about as a number 1 over all pick, and that's why he was essentially a lock to go in the top 10.  He was not more of a long shot than any other QB drafted in the top 10 but not #1 overall.  

 

Second, this idea that because he had crappy stats and a lousy record in a crummy conference is meaningless.  Absolutely meaningless.  If it meant anything, Allen never would have been able to perform as an average NFL starter and be a league leader in fourth quarter comebacks.  It is completely clear that Allen's college performance is not a measure of his ability or his potential.  And it was completely clear to NFL GMs, which is exactly why Allen WAS a top 10 pick.  Allen already has outperformed the typical crappy college record QB by so much that it's clear that that history counts for nothing.  

 

The bottom line is that Allen's past is totally irrelevant to whether he will succeed in the NFL.  The fact that his college career wasn't Heisman-level is irrelevant.  Even the fact that he has steadily improved within each of his first two seasons in the NFL is irrelevant.  His steady improvement is part of what makes me optimistic, but I get that he can plateau at any time.  

 

Allen needs to be better, plain and simple.  I'm optimistic, you're less so.  I'm fine with that.  

[eball]

8 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

For a year, sure, but if you're the GM for the Colts or Steelers, you'd trade in a heartbeat.   Allen is the ONLY QB on those three rosters who has the potential to be a franchise QB over the next 5-10 years.   It's a total no-brainer.

 

You tend to upset me and others because you don't share our optimism about where Allen is going, and I have to keep reminding myself of that.  I think you see the same QB I see, which is a guy who wasn't nearly good enough last season and has to be substantially better.  And I don't mean he needs better stats, because adding Diggs and Moss is going to give Allen better stats even if he doesn't improve.   He has to be a better NFL quarterback than he's been.

 

But I wanted to talk about a couple of others things that have been said here and in other threads that I think need to be de-bunked.  I don't think you, Biscuit, said them all, so what follows is a general response.  If the shoe fits, etc. 

 

First, this notion that Allen may have been one of the longest shot first round QBs in history is baloney.  Allen has extraordinary talent, brains, work ethic, etc.  That's why he was talked about as a number 1 over all pick, and that's why he was essentially a lock to go in the top 10.  He was not more of a long shot than any other QB drafted in the top 10 but not #1 overall.  

 

Second, this idea that because he had crappy stats and a lousy record in a crummy conference is meaningless.  Absolutely meaningless.  If it meant anything, Allen never would have been able to perform as an average NFL starter and be a league leader in fourth quarter comebacks.  It is completely clear that Allen's college performance is not a measure of his ability or his potential.  And it was completely clear to NFL GMs, which is exactly why Allen WAS a top 10 pick.  Allen already has outperformed the typical crappy college record QB by so much that it's clear that that history counts for nothing.  

 

The bottom line is that Allen's past is totally irrelevant to whether he will succeed in the NFL.  The fact that his college career wasn't Heisman-level is irrelevant.  Even the fact that he has steadily improved within each of his first two seasons in the NFL is irrelevant.  His steady improvement is part of what makes me optimistic, but I get that he can plateau at any time.  

 

Allen needs to be better, plain and simple.  I'm optimistic, you're less so.  I'm fine with that.  

No, Shaw, you’re just a homer who doesn’t want to hear anything except Allen is awesome. 

[GunnerBill]

11 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I think the point is more who has Allen had to rely on?  Now he's got Diggs.

 

I don't disagree with that point. That was not the bit I took issue with. 

[C.Biscuit97]

9 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

For a year, sure, but if you're the GM for the Colts or Steelers, you'd trade in a heartbeat.   Allen is the ONLY QB on those three rosters who has the potential to be a franchise QB over the next 5-10 years.   It's a total no-brainer.

 

You tend to upset me and others because you don't share our optimism about where Allen is going, and I have to keep reminding myself of that.  I think you see the same QB I see, which is a guy who wasn't nearly good enough last season and has to be substantially better.  And I don't mean he needs better stats, because adding Diggs and Moss is going to give Allen better stats even if he doesn't improve.   He has to be a better NFL quarterback than he's been.

 

But I wanted to talk about a couple of others things that have been said here and in other threads that I think need to be de-bunked.  I don't think you, Biscuit, said them all, so what follows is a general response.  If the shoe fits, etc. 

 

First, this notion that Allen may have been one of the longest shot first round QBs in history is baloney.  Allen has extraordinary talent, brains, work ethic, etc.  That's why he was talked about as a number 1 over all pick, and that's why he was essentially a lock to go in the top 10.  He was not more of a long shot than any other QB drafted in the top 10 but not #1 overall.  

 

Second, this idea that because he had crappy stats and a lousy record in a crummy conference is meaningless.  Absolutely meaningless.  If it meant anything, Allen never would have been able to perform as an average NFL starter and be a league leader in fourth quarter comebacks.  It is completely clear that Allen's college performance is not a measure of his ability or his potential.  And it was completely clear to NFL GMs, which is exactly why Allen WAS a top 10 pick.  Allen already has outperformed the typical crappy college record QB by so much that it's clear that that history counts for nothing.  

 

The bottom line is that Allen's past is totally irrelevant to whether he will succeed in the NFL.  The fact that his college career wasn't Heisman-level is irrelevant.  Even the fact that he has steadily improved within each of his first two seasons in the NFL is irrelevant.  His steady improvement is part of what makes me optimistic, but I get that he can plateau at any time.  

 

Allen needs to be better, plain and simple.  I'm optimistic, you're less so.  I'm fine with that.  

This is a fair post and I do appreciate the way you present your points.  But I think you do let your biases get in the way.

 

1 - I think you are a guy who’s put down Lamar Jackson’s success (correct me if I’m wrong).  You talk about Allen improving but why can’t a 23 year old MVP?  
 

2 - so it’s not concerning that a qb who has never went over 60% passing on any level and has been very inconsistent has through 2 years in the nfl, been under 60% and inconsistent?  At what point do you eventually say that maybe Allen just is not getting unlucky and there are some flaws there?  
 

and I get why, but if he wasn’t a Bill and say a Jet, what would the opinion of him be?

[GunnerBill]

56 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I mean Rivers might be washed up but he did just have 4,600 yards passing and pretty much is good for 4,000 every year.

 

would I take Rivers over Allen long term? No.  But for a year? I think Rivers would be an upgrade and Brisett is a huge upgrade over Barkley.  

Basically the only reason Pittsburgh wasn’t in the playoffs was because of maybe the worst qb play in the nfl last year.  If Big Ben is average, they are a very dangerous team and he passed for 5,000 yards the previous year.

 

I wouldn't take Rivers. Not even for a year. I have been a big Philip Rivers fan and have defended him against the many doubters for his entire career but watching him last year I thought he was done. He was throwing late Peyton Manning ducks. Agree Brissett is an upgrade over Barkley. I have a leaking teapot that is an upgrade over Matt Barkley.

 

I am with you and @DCOrange on Big Ben though. I'd take Ben for a year. He might be done too, but we didn't see any evidence of that the last time he was on the field and healthy. For the next three years? Yes I might lean Allen over Ben but I can understand why others wouldn't, especially looking in from the outside. You are asking someone to take what is still "potential" over a slam dunk future Hall of Fame Quarterback.