Sickening update from SB Nation

[Chicken Boo]

75% or more of this board wanted nothing to do with Josh Allen. 

 

Glass houses...

[Scott7975]

12 hours ago, FireChans said:

These jamokes have edited their draft article about Josh. The title used to be:

 

“If Josh Allen succeeds, the Bills will have outsmarted basically all regular humans and the entirety of math itself”

 

now it’s this:

 

“Josh Allen’s college career wasn’t great, but he’ll be a first-round pick anyway”

 

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2018/4/24/17271686/josh-allen-nfl-draft-2018-stats-analysis-comparisons

 

 

We see you trying to hide the evidence Jason Kirk! 

 

Wow zero credibility. I don't give a rats behind if people have poor takes. Everyone has poor takes. Most people around here probably didn't like the pick. Just admit they outsmarted basically all regular humans and the entirety of math itself and move on. Jeeze people are so afraid of just being wrong and admitting it.

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

1 hour ago, Chicken Boo said:

75% or more of this board wanted nothing to do with Josh Allen. 

 

Glass houses...

True but theres not wanting Josh and there’s ’if Josh is good the bills will have outsmarted every human and math itself’ 😂. 

[Richard Noggin]

15 minutes ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:

True but theres not wanting Josh and there’s ’if Josh is good the bills will have outsmarted every human and math itself’ 😂. 

 

But actually the point made in that quote is super relevant/cogent. As professional, in-person scouting got increasingly over-shadowed (in media spaces) by internet arm chair "analytics" that rely on past-results-predict-future-outcomes statistical models, the Josh Allen anti-hype pre- and post-draft stands as a stark indictment of the PFF/money ball analytical model. 

 

So Allen DID outsmart nearly every human and math itself. Including me. I heard Beane mention in person, in passing, how intrigued he was by that kid at Wyoming. "Hoping" he had a bad final college season and/or a bad pre-draft process. He was always intrigued by something the numbers couldn't account for. And he was right all along, mostly thanks to Allen's incredible and humble drive to improve. 

 

I never viewed that piece, especially with its original title, as a hit piece so much as a willingness to admit that mathematical models might/will occasionally miss, however unified they might be for or against a given prospect. 

[Pondslider]

The original article also had the sentence:

“If this works, then stats really are for losers, I guess.” 
 

It was never about “maybe Allen will be a statistical outlier and succeed after all.”  The entire narrative around that draft was the new analytics models vs the old dinosaurs of the NFL who draft players because they are tall. 
 

https://web.archive.org/web/20200111020229/https://www.barstoolsports.com/draft_josh_allen/

 

https://sites.psu.edu/nealondiscussion/2018/09/21/the-satire-of-josh-allen-is-tall/
 

It was all over draft coverage that year and the people who wanted to draw attention to predictive analytics planted their flag in the ground on Josh Allen being a bust from the start and anyone who thought he would succeed didn’t really understand the sport. 

Edited 12 hours ago by Pondslider

[CoudyBills]

13 hours ago, starrymessenger said:

I guess that's what you call retrospective analysis.
Fortunately not all talking heads are idiots. I think it was Greenie the other day who said that Josh Allen was the best QB he had ever seen, better than Elway his previous fav. 

That because he is

[UKBillFan]

6 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

But actually the point made in that quote is super relevant/cogent. As professional, in-person scouting got increasingly over-shadowed (in media spaces) by internet arm chair "analytics" that rely on past-results-predict-future-outcomes statistical models, the Josh Allen anti-hype pre- and post-draft stands as a stark indictment of the PFF/money ball analytical model. 

 

So Allen DID outsmart nearly every human and math itself. Including me. I heard Beane mention in person, in passing, how intrigued he was by that kid at Wyoming. "Hoping" he had a bad final college season and/or a bad pre-draft process. He was always intrigued by something the numbers couldn't account for. And he was right all along, mostly thanks to Allen's incredible and humble drive to improve. 

 

I never viewed that piece, especially with its original title, as a hit piece so much as a willingness to admit that mathematical models might/will occasionally miss, however unified they might be for or against a given prospect. 

 

I agree. I don't understand why they've changed it. They'd get more attention for the old piece than the new one. Isn't that the purpose of sites like SB Nation? To get clicks?

[Slippery Rubber Mats]

wow

[Mr. WEO]

13 hours ago, Goin Breakdown said:

Wgr was just taking about it in the last couple weeks and I e heard the whole Josh defying Math often. bills fans know and remember. That's all we need to know about it. With all the crap Josh the Bills received, I'm not surprised people have been collecting receipts. 

 

at the time of the draft, people saying Allen was a big unknown and a raw pure talent with some bust potential---obviously the were telling the truth. 

 

I don't see how the edit of the title changes the truth of the article/opinion at the time.  

 

It's just an extremely bizarre receipt for a fan to keep.  It's been 7 years.  It's  not like the guy rewrote the article to hedge his take.  

[TH3]

Wait.  What?   There is something on the internet that will offend  ??   Shockec

[Beck Water]

10 hours ago, Chicken Boo said:

75% or more of this board wanted nothing to do with Josh Allen. 

 

Glass houses...

 

No, not at all.  I was a "wrong Josh"er.  Heck, I kind of wanted the Bills to draft the Reindeer.

 

The differences are:

1) I don't hold myself forth as a draft expert 

2) I didn't make exaggerated claims like "If Josh Allen succeeds, the Bills will have outsmarted basically all regular humans and the entirety of math itself" or call him a "joke of a first round draft pick"
3) I sign my work - I admit I was wrong and take my helping of Crow Pie

4) I'm not going back in the archives of this site and trying to change or remove my bad takes, they're all there

The above is true of most folks on this board.

[Albany,n.y.]

11 hours ago, Whkfc said:

Spoiler the Bills did outsmart all regular humans and math itself.

They outsmarted the 6 teams that could have drafted Josh before the trade up.  The only team that might  not regret it is the final team of the 6, Tampa Bay, who used some of the picks acquired to help them win the Super Bowl with Brady. The rest have been mostly trash since 2018 although Indy had no idea Luck would retire. The worst is the Giants who one year later drafted Daniel Jones. They didn't outsmart Arizona, who also wanted Josh, they had the draft capital to outbid them. In reality, it was the Bills & Arizona who were the smart ones, but then Arizona picked an all-time bust, Mr. 9 mistakes.

[Albany,n.y.]

3 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

No, not at all.  I was a "wrong Josh"er.  Heck, I kind of wanted the Bills to draft the Reindeer.

 

The differences are:

1) I don't hold myself forth as a draft expert 

2) I didn't make exaggerated claims like "If Josh Allen succeeds, the Bills will have outsmarted basically all regular humans and the entirety of math itself" or call him a "joke of a first round draft pick"
3) I sign my work - I admit I was wrong and take my helping of Crow Pie

4) I'm not going back in the archives of this site and trying to change or remove my bad takes, they're all there

The above is true of most folks on this board.

My biggest mistakes were loving the trade up for JP, then when he proved me wrong, thinking his replacement, Trent Edwards would be the next Joe Montana.  

[Simon]

7 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

The above is true of most folks on this board.

 

Not me.

I go back and change my posts all the time.

It's the reason I am always right! <hustles to go edit opinion of Spencer Brown>