Buffalo Fanatics has a point - Burrow is elite but JA is superior

[PBF81]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Six wins without Allen?   How many wins do the Bengals get without Burrow?   Chiefs without Mahomes?   It just isn't meaningful to say the Bills are a bad team because they couldn't win without Allen, because (1) no one knows how good or bad they would be without Allen, and (2) no one knows how good or bad other teams without their star QBs.  

 

Our general level of player talent isn't above-average.  Cincy's is. I'd say 8-10 for Cincy.  Chiefs I'd say 7-9.  It's all guesswork, as you imply, but how would we move the ball w/o Allen?  It's rhetorical.  

 

[HaldimandBills]

14 hours ago, SCBills said:

If we’re talking public perception, nobody should be getting mad that certain pundits/publications will rank Burrow over Allen. 
 

Nobody cares that Allen played with a torn UCL for half the season and had a bottom tier OL with mediocre weapons and a team that ran out of gas heading into the playoffs…

 

He played poorly in the final game anyone remembers from him.   Against Burrow, who played well.  
 

Going into the season, Allen was viewed by many as the best QB in the league.  Their last glimpse of him was the 13 seconds game.  
 

I’d take Allen over anyone. He’s the most physically gifted QB in the league.   He’s never had the weapons Burrow has had or the coaching/protection Mahomes has.   My sincere hope is that Beane finally came through for his QB so that we can see his talent shine through without being let down by those around him.   
 

This and so much this. I have never heard Nick Wright, any of the so called experts at ESPN, etc ever mention this. Nick Wright and gang deliberately go out of their way to never mention this. It's why I pretty much stopped watching sports shows. It's all fluff and surface level bs. 

 

I feel like a lot of doomsday individuals on this message board only watch these type of shows. Its why they're clueless on how much more important it was to raise the floor around Allen rather than blowing your shot at one expensive weapon.

[CincyBillsFan]

17 hours ago, folz said:

 

I mean, on the one hand, who cares what the "football world" thinks. There is always so much recency bias. And we know what we have in Josh.

 

But, as to the turnovers, here are the numbers (and no, I'm not counting fumbles not lost...stats don't show almost interceptions, or almost tackles):

 

Player          Gms    INTs  FMB   TOs/Gm

Mahomes     80       49      10      .7375

Allen             77        60     20     1.038

Burrow         42        31       9       .952

 

To this point in their careers, you can definitely make a case that Mahomes (besides the 2 SBs of course) separates himself from Josh when it comes to turnovers. PM has 21 fewer turnovers than Josh, having played three more games. That is really impressive.

 

As for Burrow, well, he's played a lot fewer games at this point. But if you pro-rate his percentages out to 77 games (to match Josh), Burrow would have 57 INTs and 17 fumbles lost (not that much different than Josh's 60 and 20).

 

Plus, let's not forget that when you run as much as Josh does, there is more of a chance for fumbling...but those extra fumbles do not outweigh the positive yardage and points he gets.

 

Burrow           517 rushing yards (pro-rated out to 77 games, he'd still only have 948 yards)     7 TDs

Mahomes   1,547 rushing yards      6 TDs

Josh           3,087 rushing yards     13 TDs

 

And of course, Josh was a much more raw prospect than the other two (and walking into a talent-depleted team, unlike PM) and thrust into the starting role as a rookie (unlike PM). So, yes, Josh was more reckless with the ball his first couple of years, but he has gotten much better. He's not perfect and never will be with his style of play, but I don't think it discounts what he does do, or knocks him down the QB rankings in any significant way.

 

Over the last two years:    

 

                         Total attempts                   Fumbles

                           (pass/rush)        INTs          lost             

Mahomes:              1,433              25              4                 

Allen:                      1,459              29              8                  

Burrow:                   1,241              26              5                   

 

And obviously more attempts means more turnovers. If you pro-rate the other two to the same number of attempts as Josh, it looks like this:

 

PM:  25.45 INTs    4.07  fumbles     =     29.52 total turnovers

JA:        29 INTs        8  fumbles      =      37 total turnovers

JB:     30.5 INTs      5.9 fumbles      =      36.4 total turnovers

 

So, again, you can use the turnover argument with Mahomes, but not so much with Burrow. 

 

 

Nice effort here.  But IMO the difference between Mahomes and Allen/Burrow is even less then the career stats would imply as both Burrow & Allen had to play on terrible teams with awful offensive talent their rookie seasons.  For example Allen had 10 TD passes and 12 INT's his rookie season.  Mahomes had the luxury of sitting and learning his rookie year then starting on a Super Bowl caliber team his 2nd season. Jalen Hurts has had a similar advantage.

 

 

 

 

 

[CincyBillsFan]

13 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

I love Allen, but i'd trade him for Mahomes in a nanosecond.

 

Not for Burrow though.

I have a lot of respect for Mahomes and agree that he's an elite QB.  But no way I trade Allen for him.  Since drafting Allen the Bills have been a defense first team and have relied on Allen to carry the offensive load with a significantly less talented offensive supporting cast then Mahomes has had. Mahomes would not have worked as well in Buffalo as Allen given the Bill's defensive mindset.  I do believe that Allen would have been equally successful as Mahomes in KC.

 

 

 

[CincyBillsFan]

20 hours ago, Airseven said:

Allen is an elite athlete but he’s yet to become an elite QB. He’s capable of dominating games…he’s also capable of losing his focus, his mechanics, his poise, and can struggle to complete a pass for long stretches of games. Mahomes and Burrow aren’t infallible, but their floor - their relative consistency of execution from game to game - is so far beyond Allen.
 

The need for Bills fans to manufacture so many outside influences, so many hypotheticals, so much context in order to pretend Allen is the best is unnecessary. Just allow him to improve and perform and earn it.

I watch a lot of Bengal's games living down here in Cincinnati.  And to claim that Burrow's "floor is so far beyond Allen" is not supported by the evidence.  Just last season Burrow had two games in which he was every bit as bad (or worse) then any Allen game over the last 3 seasons:

 

Versus Pittsburgh Burrow threw 2 TD's while throwing 4 INT's including a Pick 6 and losing 1 fumble.  That is 5 TO's.  Has Allen ever had a 5 TO game?

 

Versus Cleveland Burrow's stats ended up okay with 2 TD's and 2 TO's but that was misleading.  During the first 3 quarters of the game Burrow was awful with no TDs and 2 TO's while a mediocre Browns team led 25 - 0 going into the 4th quarter. Burrow did pad his stats with meaningless yards and 2 TD's in the 4th quarter in a game the Bengals lost 32 - 13.

 

And have you forgotten Mahomes 3 INT's against a bad Denver team last season?  Sure he threw for 3 TD's and over 300 yards in that same game while pulling out a win.  But isn't that a lot like Allen's playoff game against Miami in which a lot of folks on this board claim Allen played poorly?

 

Or how about Mahomes "lows" in 2021 against the Bills and Titans -  2 TD's and 5 TO's - in blowout losses?

[ganesh]

18 hours ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

You know Shaw someone the other day mentioned I think it was on Sirius that Josh reminds him very much of Alexander Ovechkin he has these amazing performances and stats of a generational player but there was always yeh but till he won his Stanley Cup…that’s Josh he’s capable of doing things only a handful of guys who have ever played this game can do but till he wins the Lombardi Trophy he’s always going to have a yeh but deal…just a shame the D couldn’t have held on for 13 seconds last year or more then likely it wouldn’t be when is he going to win one too it’s how many. 

The more apt comparison is Steve Young and John Elway.   Both of them made great plays but required a team around them to win the Lombardi.

[Einstein]

38 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said:

I have a lot of respect for Mahomes and agree that he's an elite QB.  But no way I trade Allen for him.  Since drafting Allen the Bills have been a defense first team and have relied on Allen to carry the offensive load with a significantly less talented offensive supporting cast then Mahomes has had. Mahomes would not have worked as well in Buffalo as Allen given the Bill's defensive mindset.  I do believe that Allen would have been equally successful as Mahomes in KC.

 

That may be true for his first however many years in the league, but last year all Mahomes had was Kelce. That’s the same as Allen having Diggs. And Mahomes won a Super Bowl with him.

 

Allen is simply more prone to mistakes than Mahomes. That’s why he has more INT’s and more fumbles, yet has played in less games. The weapons around him didn’t make him fumble the ball at the goal line (twice) against Minnesota. Or throw the INT in overtime. Or throw INT’s straight to Jets players.

 

I’m very happy to have Allen. He’s likely my favorite Bill of all time at this point. But Mahomes is better. 

 

Mahomes has 49 INT’s and 31 fumbles in 80 games.

 

Allen has 60 INT’s and 52 fumbles in 77 games.

 

He is more prone to mistaken and there is no denying that.

[Shaw66]

12 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

Our general level of player talent isn't above-average.  Cincy's is. I'd say 8-10 for Cincy.  Chiefs I'd say 7-9.  It's all guesswork, as you imply, but how would we move the ball w/o Allen?  It's rhetorical.  

 

I find I don't spend much time on rhetorical questions.  I just focus on what's in front of me, and I'm happy at least, as I'm sure you are, that the Bills have Allen and that they are competing for Super Bowls.  

[PBF81]

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I find I don't spend much time on rhetorical questions.  I just focus on what's in front of me, and I'm happy at least, as I'm sure you are, that the Bills have Allen and that they are competing for Super Bowls.  

 

I am happy as well, but obviously disappointed when our seasons end as they have.  I'm of the mind that I don't mind losing, as long as we play our best, and we haven't done that.  I realize that I'm hardly alone there.  I'm better at losing to a great team, which is why the Super Bowl loss to the Skins didn't bother me as much as the other three did.  

 

And in case it wasn't obvious, I've very analytical, by nature, education, and occupation.  LOL  I'm always looking at what's preventing things, anything really, businesses etc., from being much more efficient and optimally run.  Then looking at the reasons why and causes, then making any corrections that align with that.  There are always ways to improve.  

 

So I have those two aspects of me that are conflicting.  I've toned down insofar as the Bills go over the years though.  My criticisms come from my analytical nature wanting to improve and optimize the team's play.  LOL  I miss the days of my youth where I merely watched football and got excited to see the games.  Then again, the game seemed to be much simpler back then.  I still stand by the notion that the best era of football was the '70s and '80s  

 

 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

16 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

I love Allen, but i'd trade him for Mahomes in a nanosecond.

 

Not for Burrow though.

 

This is kind of foolish. Does loyalty mean nothing? I'd get it if Allen were a top 8-12 QB. But he's solidly top three and at worst top 5. I rather ride and die with Allen than trade him for Mahomes. 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

 

That may be true for his first however many years in the league, but last year all Mahomes had was Kelce. That’s the same as Allen having Diggs. And Mahomes won a Super Bowl with him.

 

Allen is simply more prone to mistakes than Mahomes. That’s why he has more INT’s and more fumbles, yet has played in less games. The weapons around him didn’t make him fumble the ball at the goal line (twice) against Minnesota. Or throw the INT in overtime. Or throw INT’s straight to Jets players.

 

I’m very happy to have Allen. He’s likely my favorite Bill of all time at this point. But Mahomes is better. 

 

Mahomes has 49 INT’s and 31 fumbles in 80 games.

 

Allen has 60 INT’s and 52 fumbles in 77 games.

 

He is more prone to mistaken and there is no denying that.

Brainiac -

 

This excellent.  Right on the money.    I would say that the other thing Mahomes had last season that Allen didn't was Reid and Biennimy.  That's a huge difference.  

 

But your main point, about Mahomes being making fewer mistakes, is excellent.   I was in a bit of a discussion yesterday about whether the team around Allen has to get to help out Allen, and I said Allen has to get better.   The team, too, but Allen has to get better.  And his decision making has to be better.   His utilization of his teammates has to be better.  Yes, the Bills should be adding talent around him all the time, but he has to be better, too.  

 

I think the fact that Marino and Rivers don't have rings is the result of several things, but among those things is that as great as they were, they weren't good enough.  Some of it's coaching.   Marino instead of Brees on the Saints would have won a ring.  Rivers playing for Belichick.   But at some point, the truly great QBs win it in the end.   Rodgers, Brady, Mahomes.   Allen has to recognize that he isn't in their league yet, and his job is to get there.  

[ganesh]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Brainiac -

 

This excellent.  Right on the money.    I would say that the other thing Mahomes had last season that Allen didn't was Reid and Biennimy.  That's a huge difference.  

 

But your main point, about Mahomes being making fewer mistakes, is excellent.   I was in a bit of a discussion yesterday about whether the team around Allen has to get to help out Allen, and I said Allen has to get better.   The team, too, but Allen has to get better.  And his decision making has to be better.   His utilization of his teammates has to be better.  Yes, the Bills should be adding talent around him all the time, but he has to be better, too.  

 

I think the fact that Marino and Rivers don't have rings is the result of several things, but among those things is that as great as they were, they weren't good enough.  Some of it's coaching.   Marino instead of Brees on the Saints would have won a ring.  Rivers playing for Belichick.   But at some point, the truly great QBs win it in the end.   Rodgers, Brady, Mahomes.   Allen has to recognize that he isn't in their league yet, and his job is to get there.  

Very well put.  The excuses have to stop and Allen has to protect the football better.  You have to find ways to trust your team mates and give them the ball.  Dorsey needs to give a game plan to Allen to do exactly that.

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

I am happy as well, but obviously disappointed when our seasons end as they have.  I'm of the mind that I don't mind losing, as long as we play our best, and we haven't done that.  I realize that I'm hardly alone there.  I'm better at losing to a great team, which is why the Super Bowl loss to the Skins didn't bother me as much as the other three did.  

 

And in case it wasn't obvious, I've very analytical, by nature, education, and occupation.  LOL  I'm always looking at what's preventing things, anything really, businesses etc., from being much more efficient and optimally run.  Then looking at the reasons why and causes, then making any corrections that align with that.  There are always ways to improve.  

 

So I have those two aspects of me that are conflicting.  I've toned down insofar as the Bills go over the years though.  My criticisms come from my analytical nature wanting to improve and optimize the team's play.  LOL  I miss the days of my youth where I merely watched football and got excited to see the games.  Then again, the game seemed to be much simpler back then.  I still stand by the notion that the best era of football was the '70s and '80s  

 

 

Hah!  Some way along in talking to you yesterday I realized you are like you say you are, and I'm very much that way too.   I take a slightly different approach, because I've gotten to the point where I understand fully that I don't know nearly enough football to make any serious judgments about what SHOULD be done.   Rather, I spend my time thinking about what the Bills ACTUALLY have done and then try to figure out what they were thinking.   Beane's pressers help a lot in that regard, because although he doesn't say everything he's thinking, he does reveal a good deal about the thought process.    Then, I try to figure out whether I think what he's thinking actually makes sense.  What I've begun to wonder about is whether this endless pursuit of versatility is in fact the right way to do things.   In particular, I said something the other day about why the pursuit of versatility and guys who buy into McDermott's process causes the Bills to get less talent out of the second round of the draft than other teams.   When you hit on a second-rounder you've got someone who plays like a first-rounder, and that gives your team a nice talent edge over teams that don't.   And it's also caused me to wonder about their strategy for building the offensive line, which seems to be "take a swing at a second-talent once in a while; otherwise, just plug holes in free agency."   That doesn't seem to have been working (I'm hoping that Spencer Brown shows this season that he was a good gamble and that O'Cyrus Torrence is a hit.  In other words, I'm hoping that this season proves me wrong about that part of Beane's approach.).  

 

And I agree about the 70s and 80s.    Except for the violence.   The play of the game was better - fun passing game and still some old-fashioned star running backs.  

[ColoradoBills]

16 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

You didn't ask me to name one that was worse.  You asked me to name one.  

 

Six wins without Allen?   How many wins do the Bengals get without Burrow?   Chiefs without Mahomes?   It just isn't meaningful to say the Bills are a bad team because they couldn't win without Allen, because (1) no one knows how good or bad they would be without Allen, and (2) no one knows how good or bad other teams without their star QBs.  

 

All this "my dad can beat up your dad" stuff is foolish as far as I'm concerned.

As to this "six wins without Allen" nonsense, McDermott took the team to the playoffs his first year with Tyrod Taylor.

[dpberr]

I think Joe Burrow is a far more consistent and composed player than Allen at this juncture.  I think he will consistently give the above average performance, but the number of those truly great historic performances, especially in a pinch, will be limited.  

 

Josh Allen is this generation's Brett Favre or Kurt Warner IMO.  When on, he's *on*, but he's not always going to be on.  There will be mind-scratching throws and erratic performances.  However, these quarterbacks can deliver those amazing performances - the comeback win, the shootout win, the Super Bowl win.    

 

 

[Mikie2times]

I don't think Josh is a traditional QB. He is not going to take 3-5 steps and fire. He will at times do this, but improvisation is a big part of his game. Which also involves running. Which is he very good at as well. 

 

Burrow is a traditional QB. He is heavily dependent on timing. He is very accurate. Not nearly as good as Josh at improvising. Really, only Mahomes is, but he can run if he needs to. 

 

At times we see the benefits of having a QB like Josh and at times we see the negatives. I think Brady showed that a pure passer will always beat anything else. It's the hardest to take away. The most demoralizing.  That's what Burrow is probably even more so than Mahomes. So I expect Burrows will keep giving both Josh and Mahomes issues. 

[AuntieEm]

On 5/5/2023 at 9:25 PM, Inigo Montoya said:

I'm more than happy to have the spot light taken off of this team as much as possible.  I'd rather have more Sunday 1 pm games and less primetime.  I'd rather have the pundits focus on Mahomes v Burrow and ignore the Bills while they quietly keep stacking wins.

 

 

 

Lol wish Allen could slip off the radar and focus.  Unfortunately he is such a talent when he is focused and dialed in that he's a player people like watching..  There's a good reason Bills keep getting Primetime games.  It's because Josh is such an entertaining player and I don't want that to change anytime soon.  

[Mikie2times]

7 minutes ago, dpberr said:

I think Joe Burrow is a far more consistent and composed player than Allen at this juncture.  I think he will consistently give the above average performance, but the number of those truly great historic performances, especially in a pinch, will be limited.  

 

Josh Allen is this generation's Brett Favre or Kurt Warner IMO.  When on, he's *on*, but he's not always going to be on.  There will be mind-scratching throws and erratic performances.  However, these quarterbacks can deliver those amazing performances - the comeback win, the shootout win, the Super Bowl win.    

 

 

Burrow consistency in passing is just higher because he is better at just passing. Josh makes up for it to some extent in athleticism, but when you look at situations that really require passing and passing only, that is where you see the separation.

 

Burrow has a QBR of 101.9 when leading and 101.2 when trailing.

Allen, 99 leading vs 86.4 trailing, almost a 14 point drop.

 

Allen has a 92.2 QBR overall, on 3rd down its 88, 4.2% drop.

Burrow has a 100.4 QBR overall, on 3rd down it's 103.2. 2.8% better 

 

 

 

[PBF81]

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

And I agree about the 70s and 80s.    Except for the violence.   The play of the game was better - fun passing game and still some old-fashioned star running backs.  

 

Presumably you mean the violence of the game on the field?   ... and yes, I would agree with you on that aspect.  That even continued into the '90s and I hated nothing more than players that deliberately tried to injure or hurt other players.  Siragusa was like that for the Ravens, couldn't stand the guy.  

 

 

[Shaw66]

36 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Presumably you mean the violence of the game on the field?   ... and yes, I would agree with you on that aspect.  That even continued into the '90s and I hated nothing more than players that deliberately tried to injure or hurt other players.  Siragusa was like that for the Ravens, couldn't stand the guy.  

 

 

Yes, I meant onfield violence.   I like it as a good, but after a while I had to agree that the game needed to change to keep from injuring so many so seriously.  An ambulence ride was never far away, or at least it seemed that way.  

 

But the play of the game?  Those games were great.