what are your thoughts on him? I personally love him and think he quelled his critics in the Senior Bowl (at least temporarily). I've been watching tape on him since October and understand the concerns with his play against Power-5s etc...however he brings not only physical tools to the table but some moxy as well. There's a good chance Cleveland takes him at 1, but a lot can happen between now and draft night.
Holy shit - Josh Allen, never heard of the guy!!!
Just from observation, about 75% of BBI seems to not want anything to do with him.
I think he's the kind of guy you take a chance on, but not sure I'd use the #2 pick on him. He has everything you want in a QB in terms of physical traits. He can become one of the best QBs in the NFL if he reaches his potential.
But he has to do some work on his footwork, mechanics, and refine the mental aspect of the game. If those things start to click, he could be the next Elway.
I'm not sure Allen stands out among the field for those things.
Don't trust those numbers.
Rosen is not the complete package because he has very limited mobility. He also doesn't have nearly as big an arm as Allen. Rosen may very well be an outstanding NFL QB, but "complete package" is a stretch.
Rosen = most talented of the bunch, born to be a QB, will probably be very good, but concerns over frame and ability to stay healthy over a career are valid
Allen = has the look and arm of NFL QB, but seems like a lot of great pieces not necessarily put together
Quote:
not crazy about him. Injuries aside, Rosen is the complete package. I laugh at people who say he's "too skinny, small build." Guess what, that's what scouts said about a certain guy named Tom Brady. Allen supporters also argue about his supporting cast, but CFB Film Room showed that of the "Top 4" QB's in the class, Allen only had 7.8% of his passes dropped and his completion percentage is still gross. Rosen on the other hand, had 13.2% of his passes dropped. Allen is just too inaccurate and that's something that rarely improves, if at all at the next level.
Don't trust those numbers.
Rosen is not the complete package because he has very limited mobility. He also doesn't have nearly as big an arm as Allen. Rosen may very well be an outstanding NFL QB, but "complete package" is a stretch.
When I say complete package, I just mean someone that I'd be comfortable taking over the helm and is most NFL ready. Maybe "the most complete package out of what's available" would have been more accurate.
The problem is, you can't just put his injuries aside. At least not the recent concussions. That, coupled with his statement that football is not the be all and end all, will eliminate him from consideration by the Giants, as both DG and PS have stated they want players for whom football is everything.
Allen's is 56.2%.
People can poo-poo the stat, but it seems to be statistically relevant.
I'm sorry but I wholeheartedly disagree. The kid played D1 football while going to school and got knocked on his ass every game. I don't care who you are or where you come from, you don't go through all that if you don't love football. Also, he's been quoted to say that football is his life so it's annoying to see this crap still being brought up. Nonsense.
If only he could ht the broad side of a barn with his passes, he might be worth the pick.
Darnold - 7.1
Rosen - 6.1
Jackson - 6.0
Mayfield - 6.0
Allen - 5.9
I heard it on the Carlin, Maggie and Bart podcast today.
Allen's is 56.2%.
People can poo-poo the stat, but it seems to be statistically relevant.
Marino had a 57% completion percentage
Quote:
on Reddit that shows any college QB who has a completion % under 58% is very unlikely to be successful.
Allen's is 56.2%.
People can poo-poo the stat, but it seems to be statistically relevant.
Marino had a 57% completion percentage
Almost nothing is 100% and there are exceptions to most rules. That doesn't mean this statistic is irrelevant.
Quote:
is that Allen generally looks and feels like he loves football
So does Davis Webb, and we already have him
So does Sam Darnold and Baker Mayfield.
Quote:
not crazy about him. Injuries aside, Rosen is the complete package. I laugh at people who say he's "too skinny, small build." Guess what, that's what scouts said about a certain guy named Tom Brady. Allen supporters also argue about his supporting cast, but CFB Film Room showed that of the "Top 4" QB's in the class, Allen only had 7.8% of his passes dropped and his completion percentage is still gross. Rosen on the other hand, had 13.2% of his passes dropped. Allen is just too inaccurate and that's something that rarely improves, if at all at the next level.
Don't trust those numbers.
Rosen is not the complete package because he has very limited mobility. He also doesn't have nearly as big an arm as Allen. Rosen may very well be an outstanding NFL QB, but "complete package" is a stretch.
Because the stats don't fit your opinion we throw them out?
Multiple sites have come out with similar numbers that show Allen was at the bottom of the top QB's in dropped passes.
Why shouldn't we trust those numbers when more than one person is saying it?
Quote:
on Reddit that shows any college QB who has a completion % under 58% is very unlikely to be successful.
Allen's is 56.2%.
People can poo-poo the stat, but it seems to be statistically relevant.
Marino had a 57% completion percentage
Marino also played college football 36 years ago.
I'll see if I can find it and link. It was astounding. Something like less than 1% of QB's drafted or signed to a roster who had a completion % less than 58% became starters for more than a year.
also, Darnold...who while physically gifted but less gifted in every category than Allen, had more than 2x the interceptions and many more fumbles and has a delivery that is less than ideal (loopy)
I don't know why Darnold is more often ranked ahead of Allen
Of course it matters when he played, the game was different.
Quote:
In comment 13814146 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
on Reddit that shows any college QB who has a completion % under 58% is very unlikely to be successful.
Allen's is 56.2%.
People can poo-poo the stat, but it seems to be statistically relevant.
Marino had a 57% completion percentage
Marino also played college football 36 years ago.
The methodology:
But the most important trait a quarterback can have, without a doubt, is whether or not they can complete a pass. I know it seems obvious, but you want a quarterback that can actually throw the ball and complete his passes.
Amazingly enough, there are teams that don’t look for this. There are some teams that take quarterbacks that, in college, had insanely low completion percentages and magically hope they’ll be able to turn it around. There are very few players that did nothing in college that magically turned it around and played well at the professional level, and the same applies for quarterbacks. Despite this, teams have taken chances on quarterbacks that can’t complete a pass, but display some sort of potential or intangible that ends up being completely meaningless when all is said and done.
Is there a magic number for college to determine the baseline of quarterbacks? Is there a number where you can flat out say they will not be good, and where you can save yourself the trouble of looking at the tape? Let’s find out.
Part I: The Formula
I looked at every NFL Draft since 2002, when the Houston Texans joined the league. The magic number I came upon was 58.5%. Simply put, if a QB completes above 58.5% of their passes in college, they’re at least worth a look (for me, the bar is set at 60%, but there are some exceptions to this rule). If a QB completes 58.5% of their passes or less, then in all likelihood, they’ll be complete garbage.
I took a look at a few things when creating this list:
If a QB got injured that season and didn’t have a large enough sample size, I don’t count that. For that reason, Sam Bradford does not make this list, as he barely threw any passes his final season before getting hurt twice (in games against BYU and Texas). The QB had to play at least a substantial portion of the season before getting hurt for it to count.
If a QB was a backup in college, it’s fair game. Doesn’t matter how many passes they threw- if they were a backup and didn’t get a whole lot of playing time, that’s fine. For this list, this ended up not applying
I did not count any QBs playing at the FCS (I-AA) level or lower. The reason for this is not me cherry-picking, but rather, because after a certain year, I was unable to find any stats on some QBs at that level. Only FBS (I-A) quarterbacks are on this list
If a player got drafted into the league as a QB but got converted after the fact (like BJ Daniels), they’re on the list. If a player played QB in college but converted beforehand (like Matt Jones and Denard Robinson), they’re not on the list.
I am only counting what they did for the team that they got drafted by. That’s how you evaluate a draft pick- by how well they play for your team. If there’s a QB on the list that got drafted by Seattle, did nothing for Seattle, but then went on and dominated with Philadelphia, I’m only looking at the Seattle stats. This only (and barely) applies to one QB on the list (Luke McCown)
I am excluding the 2015 and 2016 drafts, because part of this is retrospective. If it takes 3 years to truly evaluate a draft class, then I’ll give it 3 years. For this reason, we are looking at the NFL Draft from 2002-2014
58.5% - the Magic Number - ( New Window )
also, Darnold...who while physically gifted but less gifted in every category than Allen, had more than 2x the interceptions and many more fumbles and has a delivery that is less than ideal (loopy)
I don't know why Darnold is more often ranked ahead of Allen
His team stunk. So did his entire conference. He didn't excel. Full stop. Let someone else take the risk.
College Stats Don't Lie - ( New Window )
Of course it matters. Comparing a current draft eligible QB to Dan Marino is the equivalent of comparing draft eligible Dan Marino to YA Tittle. FTR, YA Tittle completed 46% of his passes at LSU.
The game has changed. Offenses today are far more sophisticated than they were 35 years ago. Yes, statistics can be manipulated, but as a statistician, you should appreciate that some stats are more manipulation-proof than others. Completion % has been, through the years, a pretty good barometer. It doesn't mean that Josh Allen won't be a good NFL QB, but that the odds are against it.
The methodology:
Quote:
When people look for traits in a quarterback, it varies. Some look for intelligence. Others look for mobility. Others look for pocket presence and ability to throw under pressure. Others look for leadership. And some look at how many people attended their birthday party.
But the most important trait a quarterback can have, without a doubt, is whether or not they can complete a pass. I know it seems obvious, but you want a quarterback that can actually throw the ball and complete his passes.
Amazingly enough, there are teams that don’t look for this. There are some teams that take quarterbacks that, in college, had insanely low completion percentages and magically hope they’ll be able to turn it around. There are very few players that did nothing in college that magically turned it around and played well at the professional level, and the same applies for quarterbacks. Despite this, teams have taken chances on quarterbacks that can’t complete a pass, but display some sort of potential or intangible that ends up being completely meaningless when all is said and done.
Is there a magic number for college to determine the baseline of quarterbacks? Is there a number where you can flat out say they will not be good, and where you can save yourself the trouble of looking at the tape? Let’s find out.
Part I: The Formula
I looked at every NFL Draft since 2002, when the Houston Texans joined the league. The magic number I came upon was 58.5%. Simply put, if a QB completes above 58.5% of their passes in college, they’re at least worth a look (for me, the bar is set at 60%, but there are some exceptions to this rule). If a QB completes 58.5% of their passes or less, then in all likelihood, they’ll be complete garbage.
I took a look at a few things when creating this list:
If a QB got injured that season and didn’t have a large enough sample size, I don’t count that. For that reason, Sam Bradford does not make this list, as he barely threw any passes his final season before getting hurt twice (in games against BYU and Texas). The QB had to play at least a substantial portion of the season before getting hurt for it to count.
If a QB was a backup in college, it’s fair game. Doesn’t matter how many passes they threw- if they were a backup and didn’t get a whole lot of playing time, that’s fine. For this list, this ended up not applying
I did not count any QBs playing at the FCS (I-AA) level or lower. The reason for this is not me cherry-picking, but rather, because after a certain year, I was unable to find any stats on some QBs at that level. Only FBS (I-A) quarterbacks are on this list
If a player got drafted into the league as a QB but got converted after the fact (like BJ Daniels), they’re on the list. If a player played QB in college but converted beforehand (like Matt Jones and Denard Robinson), they’re not on the list.
I am only counting what they did for the team that they got drafted by. That’s how you evaluate a draft pick- by how well they play for your team. If there’s a QB on the list that got drafted by Seattle, did nothing for Seattle, but then went on and dominated with Philadelphia, I’m only looking at the Seattle stats. This only (and barely) applies to one QB on the list (Luke McCown)
I am excluding the 2015 and 2016 drafts, because part of this is retrospective. If it takes 3 years to truly evaluate a draft class, then I’ll give it 3 years. For this reason, we are looking at the NFL Draft from 2002-2014
58.5% - the Magic Number - ( New Window )
As one of the comments says, it would be interesting to see the players over the threshold adjusted for the system and then see how they did in the NFL
If you wanted to be critical, you could just as easily say that dropped passes are a partial product of poor/inaccurate throws. There's no information behind a dropped passes stat that tells you whether the receiver should have certainly caught it, or if Allen was tossing wobblers or throwing rockets with no touch.
As far as anyone knows, Allen is a good guy. And I don’t agree that accuracy can’t be fixed. It depends on what the problem is. In Allen’s case, it may be footwork which is fixable.
As far as anyone knows, Allen is a good guy. And I don’t agree that accuracy can’t be fixed. It depends on what the problem is. In Allen’s case, it may be footwork which is fixable.
Agreed
If you wanted to be critical, you could just as easily say that dropped passes are a partial product of poor/inaccurate throws. There's no information behind a dropped passes stat that tells you whether the receiver should have certainly caught it, or if Allen was tossing wobblers or throwing rockets with no touch.
Somewhere Reuban Randle is reading this and yelling to nobody in particular "I told you they weren't all my fault".
Plenty of small school QBs have done that and have been given a shot to sink or swim in the NFL. It's a testament to how important the position Is, how difficult it is to play at a high level in the NFL, and how much risk teams are willing to assume in finding one.
His completion percentage, which FMiC alluded to, is the biggest strike against him, but it isn't the only one. He also is well behind the curve in mechanics, reading defenses, running a sophisticated defense.
So it doesn't require much of a deep dive to realize that his evaluation is based solely on his arm. That simply isn't good enough of a reason to invest a top pick on and a guaranteed contract. Particularly in consideration of what DG mentioned of "QB hell". Being locked into a poor/avg QB who you're playing and paying simply because of where he was drafted.
This is not the guy to hitch your wagon to. If he were available in the 3rd or 4th - go get him. First round, different story. We already have a developmental QB who may or not be a guy. Let alone, the guy.
Hard pass.
If accuracy were simply a matter of footwork, you'd think there'd be a long list of QBs who were able to overcome poor passing percentage in the NFL.
Care to list?
What they all do is get the ball to their receivers some look pretty doing it others can look nice or ugly in the end same results. However everyone of them also has faults and weaknesses or they would never miss a pass. It seems like most are expecting these young guys not to come into the league and require time to develop. If that is the case then should you not take the player with the best physical and mental tools available. The combine and pro days are still to be completed even after those there will still be questions and concerns. Does this player fit your desired offense scheme and are you looking to start him by mid year or next?
Today I would take Allen at pick one to Six can’t see him lasting any longer, Darnold from the same range and Rosen from two to six. Rudolph is the guy who could surprise us all when a guy produces for two or three years he has to have some talent. Everyone talks about the offense these kids play in but they will all have to learn and then apply that on the field there is no other way to finally find out if he is true blue or JAG.
What they all do is get the ball to their receivers some look pretty doing it others can look nice or ugly in the end same results. However everyone of them also has faults and weaknesses or they would never miss a pass. It seems like most are expecting these young guys not to come into the league and require time to develop. If that is the case then should you not take the player with the best physical and mental tools available. The combine and pro days are still to be completed even after those there will still be questions and concerns. Does this player fit your desired offense scheme and are you looking to start him by mid year or next?
Today I would take Allen at pick one to Six can’t see him lasting any longer, Darnold from the same range and Rosen from two to six. Rudolph is the guy who could surprise us all when a guy produces for two or three years he has to have some talent. Everyone talks about the offense these kids play in but they will all have to learn and then apply that on the field there is no other way to finally find out if he is true blue or JAG.
No he does not have the most upside because he is not accurate.
b) had a dismal completion percentage (over three years)
c) needed major work on all facets of being a QB
d) no one coming out of HS
Allen checks all of those boxes. Those other guys didnt.
All guys have questions or flags. And yes, there will be growth by virtue of working with professional coaches. Allen simply has too many flaws and "ifs" to consider this high. Too much risk.
Quote:
The problem is, you can't just put his injuries aside. At least not the recent concussions. That, coupled with his statement that football is not the be all and end all, will eliminate him from consideration by the Giants, as both DG and PS have stated they want players for whom football is everything.
I'm sorry but I wholeheartedly disagree. The kid played D1 football while going to school and got knocked on his ass every game. I don't care who you are or where you come from, you don't go through all that if you don't love football. Also, he's been quoted to say that football is his life so it's annoying to see this crap still being brought up. Nonsense.
No way! A guy who is currently being evaluated for a job that will pay millions said that job is his life? Shocking.
Some of it does fall on the talent. The year before, they had talent. It's not like he had some special season in 2016 either. It was better, it wasn't "Look out for Josh Allen. He's gonna be a star."
Below 60% completion rate in lesser college FB conference is a HUGE red flag.
I don't see any way he is a top 2 pick, especially with a poor senior bowl showing in practice.
He will have to have a "light out" pro day and an impressive combine to have a shot.
The methodology:
Quote:
When people look for traits in a quarterback, it varies. Some look for intelligence. Others look for mobility. Others look for pocket presence and ability to throw under pressure. Others look for leadership. And some look at how many people attended their birthday party.
But the most important trait a quarterback can have, without a doubt, is whether or not they can complete a pass. I know it seems obvious, but you want a quarterback that can actually throw the ball and complete his passes.
Amazingly enough, there are teams that don’t look for this. There are some teams that take quarterbacks that, in college, had insanely low completion percentages and magically hope they’ll be able to turn it around. There are very few players that did nothing in college that magically turned it around and played well at the professional level, and the same applies for quarterbacks. Despite this, teams have taken chances on quarterbacks that can’t complete a pass, but display some sort of potential or intangible that ends up being completely meaningless when all is said and done.
Is there a magic number for college to determine the baseline of quarterbacks? Is there a number where you can flat out say they will not be good, and where you can save yourself the trouble of looking at the tape? Let’s find out.
Part I: The Formula
I looked at every NFL Draft since 2002, when the Houston Texans joined the league. The magic number I came upon was 58.5%. Simply put, if a QB completes above 58.5% of their passes in college, they’re at least worth a look (for me, the bar is set at 60%, but there are some exceptions to this rule). If a QB completes 58.5% of their passes or less, then in all likelihood, they’ll be complete garbage.
I took a look at a few things when creating this list:
If a QB got injured that season and didn’t have a large enough sample size, I don’t count that. For that reason, Sam Bradford does not make this list, as he barely threw any passes his final season before getting hurt twice (in games against BYU and Texas). The QB had to play at least a substantial portion of the season before getting hurt for it to count.
If a QB was a backup in college, it’s fair game. Doesn’t matter how many passes they threw- if they were a backup and didn’t get a whole lot of playing time, that’s fine. For this list, this ended up not applying
I did not count any QBs playing at the FCS (I-AA) level or lower. The reason for this is not me cherry-picking, but rather, because after a certain year, I was unable to find any stats on some QBs at that level. Only FBS (I-A) quarterbacks are on this list
If a player got drafted into the league as a QB but got converted after the fact (like BJ Daniels), they’re on the list. If a player played QB in college but converted beforehand (like Matt Jones and Denard Robinson), they’re not on the list.
I am only counting what they did for the team that they got drafted by. That’s how you evaluate a draft pick- by how well they play for your team. If there’s a QB on the list that got drafted by Seattle, did nothing for Seattle, but then went on and dominated with Philadelphia, I’m only looking at the Seattle stats. This only (and barely) applies to one QB on the list (Luke McCown)
I am excluding the 2015 and 2016 drafts, because part of this is retrospective. If it takes 3 years to truly evaluate a draft class, then I’ll give it 3 years. For this reason, we are looking at the NFL Draft from 2002-2014
58.5% - the Magic Number - ( New Window )
Allen would have needed a whole 5 or 6 more completions during the season to reach the "magic" 58.5%. That is not to say that Allen does not have his flaws. However, no one will pass on Allen over 5 or 6 completions even assuming they lend credence to this "analysis."
Quote:
And I don’t agree that accuracy can’t be fixed. It depends on what the problem is. In Allen’s case, it may be footwork which is fixable.
If accuracy were simply a matter of footwork, you'd think there'd be a long list of QBs who were able to overcome poor passing percentage in the NFL.
Care to list?
He's a huge risk, hopefully someone else's.
Mayfild: 9.49%
Rosen: 11.01%
I was wrong about Darnold, though: 6.81%
Quote:
Quote:
And I don’t agree that accuracy can’t be fixed. It depends on what the problem is. In Allen’s case, it may be footwork which is fixable.
If accuracy were simply a matter of footwork, you'd think there'd be a long list of QBs who were able to overcome poor passing percentage in the NFL.
Care to list?
How did Eli Manning improve from a 53% passer in the NFL to a 63% passer?
Eli Manning was a career 60+% passer at Ole Miss. That's over 4 years.
I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. As usual.
Quote:
Quote:
And I don’t agree that accuracy can’t be fixed. It depends on what the problem is. In Allen’s case, it may be footwork which is fixable.
If accuracy were simply a matter of footwork, you'd think there'd be a long list of QBs who were able to overcome poor passing percentage in the NFL.
Care to list?
How did Eli Manning improve from a 53% passer in the NFL to a 63% passer?
Eli was a 61% passer in college (62% as a senior). That's the point - it's not about improving from your first few years in the NFL; it's that your college stats have a strong correlation for what you'll be in the NFL.
It's not that complicated, unless you're actively trying to miss the point.
Allen would have needed a whole 5 or 6 more completions during the season to reach the "magic" 58.5%. That is not to say that Allen does not have his flaws. However, no one will pass on Allen over 5 or 6 completions even assuming they lend credence to this "analysis."
They were longshots because they sucked. Because they couldn't complete passes. It's literally the most important thing that QBs have to do. The only thing different about the shitty QBs on that list who went in the first and the bad QBs who went later were seductive measurables and big arms and all sorts of other factors that scouts, GMs (and fans) use to convince themselves that a bad QB can be fixed.
I actually thought you were talking about Eli. But here we discount the same things for a replacement that we failed to discount in a rush to replace him. Funny stuff.
I read your comment again and arrived at the same conclusion.
Your point being that depending on what's causing Allen's accuracy issues, it may be fixable. Like footwork, for instance.
I then asked you to name to a college QB who succeeded in the NFL with such a poor completion percentage in college.
I think completing passes in real game situations, on the move, is an elite skill. It requires vision, anticipation, ability to lead the target, arm strength to get over the defender or out to the back shoulder.
Akin to hitting 90 mph FB or ML breaking stuff. Either you can do it with regularity or you can't. Some can be polished up with minor adjustments to stance and approach, but you largely can't teach it.
Quote:
In comment 13814275 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
Quote:
And I don’t agree that accuracy can’t be fixed. It depends on what the problem is. In Allen’s case, it may be footwork which is fixable.
If accuracy were simply a matter of footwork, you'd think there'd be a long list of QBs who were able to overcome poor passing percentage in the NFL.
Care to list?
How did Eli Manning improve from a 53% passer in the NFL to a 63% passer?
Eli Manning was a career 60+% passer at Ole Miss. That's over 4 years.
I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. As usual.
Your premise is that accuracy is a skill which can be improved upon in the NFL, but only in subjects that have met some sort of arbitrary threshold in college. Is that correct? However, individuals that have not hit this arbitrary measure in college cannot improve their accuracy in the NFL and/or become successful? That’s incredibly faulty logic.
Moreover, do you acknowledge that players that have reached the upper bounds in displaying collegiate accuracy do not necessarily find themselves successful in the NFL, nor does their accuracy correspondingly translate at a high rate to the league?
I’d love to see a regression of collegiate accuracy and NFL success.
Quote:
In comment 13814146 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
on Reddit that shows any college QB who has a completion % under 58% is very unlikely to be successful.
Allen's is 56.2%.
People can poo-poo the stat, but it seems to be statistically relevant.
Marino had a 57% completion percentage
Almost nothing is 100% and there are exceptions to most rules. That doesn't mean this statistic is irrelevant.
But the comparisons to Marino don't end there. Marino was the prototypical specimen who did not do well in his last year in College...I see a lot of similarities there...
You can say that there have been guys recently who had poor completion %'s in college who turned out to be good or even serviceable pros, but the results say otherwise. You can say accuracy can be taught, but there is very little evidence to back it up.
Add it all up and taking a guy at #2 who can't break the barrier for a minimum completion % is taking a huge risk. A monumental one. You aren't just fighting poor accuracy, you're also fighting history.
Put it this way - we can point to several QB's short of stature who succeeded or are succeeding in the NFL. There's not a single guy with poor completion who has done it in recent times.
If you don't see the odds are stacked against allen, then you need a class in statistics.
Did Allen get better each year?
Carry on
Looks like Allen lost 2 YPA also. Yikes.
Carry on
What did we ever do until you graced us with your presence?
I was also not aware that people could watch a message board debate, but carry on.
His team stunk. So did his entire conference. He didn't excel. Full stop. Let someone else take the risk.
College Stats Don't Lie - ( New Window )
Maybe so but the same things were being written about Phil Simms and Moorehead St many years ago.
Quote:
I don't care if he can throw a spiral to Mars, from his knees.
His team stunk. So did his entire conference. He didn't excel. Full stop. Let someone else take the risk.
College Stats Don't Lie - ( New Window )
Maybe so but the same things were being written about Phil Simms and Moorehead St many years ago.
That said, in that game, I would've liked to have seen him give his receivers a chance to catch the ball on a higher % of those deep balls. In the Senior Bowl, however, he did very well with those throws.
The problem with Allen is being able to track these. It's a time consuming process and then you have to compare to other guys. What I would like to know is how many passes over 20 yards, how many over 15, as a percentage of total number of throws. Y/A isn't super helpful because if you throw 5 deep passes that you miss on, and then connect on 1 pass for 25 yards, your Y/A is just 4.16.
I don't think either Rosen or Darnold will translate well in the Nov/Dec weather in NJ. Rosen already has bad knees & shoulder. Darnold , I just don't trust USC QB's .Good numbers but ....
Allen, on the other hand, played in Wyoming. Crap weather. I think he will end up being his generations Roethlisberger. Big, strong can take a lot of hits.
he seems to be getting bad reviews. maybe Giants can trade down and get him and extra picks.
If not trade down and load up on Ol/DL/LB
Your premise is that accuracy is a skill which can be improved upon in the NFL, but only in subjects that have met some sort of arbitrary threshold in college. Is that correct? However, individuals that have not hit this arbitrary measure in college cannot improve their accuracy in the NFL and/or become successful? That’s incredibly faulty logic.
Moreover, do you acknowledge that players that have reached the upper bounds in displaying collegiate accuracy do not necessarily find themselves successful in the NFL, nor does their accuracy correspondingly translate at a high rate to the league?
I’d love to see a regression of collegiate accuracy and NFL success.
It's been explained over and over again. No college QB prospect in the last 15+ drafts has gone on to succeed in the NFL after failing to complete at least 58.5% of his passes in college. This is fact and it isn't a small sample size. Allen failed to do it in three years (granted, he redshirted his first).
You dont think this is a relevant statistic. Fine. You think his issues are fixable with some coaching? Fine. Your prerogative.
However, you've repeatedly set up straw men on this thread and it borders on obtuse. Argue the point. Don't waste people's time in responding to your drivel.
Being big and strong are about all the two have in common.
Quote:
I don't care if he can throw a spiral to Mars, from his knees.
His team stunk. So did his entire conference. He didn't excel. Full stop. Let someone else take the risk.
College Stats Don't Lie - ( New Window )
Maybe so but the same things were being written about Phil Simms and Moorehead St many years ago.
It was a totally different era. Simms threw a total 173 passes in his senior year in a ball control offense. He threw just over 800 passes in his entire 4 years at Moorehead St.
Here are the current prospects for comparisons sake:
Darnold - 480 attempts in 2017 (846 over two years)
Rosen - 452 attempts in 2017 (1170 over three years)
Allen - 270 attempts in 2017 (649 over two years)
Jackson - 430 attempts in 2017 (1086 over 3 years)
Mayfield - 404 attempts in 2017 (1026 over 4 years)
These guys are all coming from passing offenses these days, be it spread, pro-style, or some hybrid. They should be much more polished passers coming out than when Simms came out. 56% passing just doesn't cut it. Not from a guy being ballyhooed as a top prospect.
That's a chance you take in the 3rd round. It isn't one you take at #2.
Point is, different era.
Stafford was a 57% passer in college and he had AJ Green.
He's a fantastic NFL QB and passer.
He also went #1 overall.
NFL isn't dismissing the guy because of this stat. Its a question mark but he has rare tools.
Allen can move around and make rip throws like Stafford. He's also a Hoss who will extend plays and make plays with his feet in the NFL.
-1
The only thing that dragged his totals down was when he was pressed to play as a true freshman and had a 52% completion rate
He also has zero playoff wins and had Megatron to throw to for most of his career.
He's a fantastic NFL QB and passer.
He also went #1 overall.
NFL isn't dismissing the guy because of this stat. Its a question mark but he has rare tools.
Allen can move around and make rip throws like Stafford. He's also a Hoss who will extend plays and make plays with his feet in the NFL.
I guess you didn't read the actual reddit post or even FMiC's post which included much of it. The determining data, at least according to the hypothesis, is the QB's final year in college, not his career completion percentage in college.
Allen's is 56.2%.
People can poo-poo the stat, but it seems to be statistically relevant.
That is not to say Allen is without flaw, but I will guarantee you no NFL personnel person is looking at that "analysis" as anything but toilet paper and if someone like that exists, they should be fired.
That's a chance you take in the 3rd round. It isn't one you take at #2.
BTW, if Allen had completed 5 or 6 more passes his senior year, he would have made the "standard". That's what you are basing your decisions on: 5-6 completions.
Actually, it states very clearly that a completion % over 58.5% is no guarantee that the QB will be a good pro, but carry on.
The hard-on some have for this guy is unreal. First it was he had no team around him, then it was the drops (until someone pointed out that Allen had fewer drops than any of the top QB's in the draft class), then it was questioning what statisticians consider a drop, and now it is questioning how many deep balls he threw compared to others!
I'm on the fence about Baker Mayfield, but the guy threw deep a ton, and completed 70% of his throws. Yes, Allen could develop into a very good NFL QB, but the odds are stacked against him. To take him at #2 would be a ridiculous risk.
Quote:
Indulge us and name one QB who broke that trend.
Brett Favre. Tom Brady. Ever hear of them?
You clearly have missed the point entirely.
Quote:
That "analysis" is crap, made by some guy on Reddit and no way statistically relevant. Filled with players taken in rounds 3-7 and no mention of the guys who failed who had completion percentages over the "standard." (hint: start with Nassib)
Actually, it states very clearly that a completion % over 58.5% is no guarantee that the QB will be a good pro, but carry on.
The hard-on some have for this guy is unreal. First it was he had no team around him, then it was the drops (until someone pointed out that Allen had fewer drops than any of the top QB's in the draft class), then it was questioning what statisticians consider a drop, and now it is questioning how many deep balls he threw compared to others!
I'm on the fence about Baker Mayfield, but the guy threw deep a ton, and completed 70% of his throws. Yes, Allen could develop into a very good NFL QB, but the odds are stacked against him. To take him at #2 would be a ridiculous risk.
There are a ton of Baker Mayfield fanboys (and no doubt his agents) trying to push him up in the draft (and money) order even though he's a short, spread-style qb who has his own deficiencies and question marks. I will go out on a minor limb and say that the odds are more stacked against Mayfield than Allen.
Quote:
Of course you don’t understand- there are levels to intellect.
Your premise is that accuracy is a skill which can be improved upon in the NFL, but only in subjects that have met some sort of arbitrary threshold in college. Is that correct? However, individuals that have not hit this arbitrary measure in college cannot improve their accuracy in the NFL and/or become successful? That’s incredibly faulty logic.
Moreover, do you acknowledge that players that have reached the upper bounds in displaying collegiate accuracy do not necessarily find themselves successful in the NFL, nor does their accuracy correspondingly translate at a high rate to the league?
I’d love to see a regression of collegiate accuracy and NFL success.
It's been explained over and over again. No college QB prospect in the last 15+ drafts has gone on to succeed in the NFL after failing to complete at least 58.5% of his passes in college. This is fact and it isn't a small sample size. Allen failed to do it in three years (granted, he redshirted his first).
You dont think this is a relevant statistic. Fine. You think his issues are fixable with some coaching? Fine. Your prerogative.
However, you've repeatedly set up straw men on this thread and it borders on obtuse. Argue the point. Don't waste people's time in responding to your drivel.
Furthermore, it seems specious to suggest that collegiate accuracy numbers are a statistically significant indicator of NFL success but only from an exclusionary perspective, meaning that the correlation to NFL success only holds for completion % below 58.5% but once that level is breached the correlation is no longer indicative of levels of success. You would think Tim Tebow (68%), Colt Brennan (73%), and others would be NFL world-beaters but, alas, that was not the case.
I went back and read the study cited by FMiC. Some questions and comments...
- The study does not canvas 15+ drafts, rather it begins in 2002 and ends in 2014
- Approximately 165 quarterbacks were drafted during the 2002-2014 time period. The reddit author identified 31 quarterbacks (19%) that met his criteria for inaccuracy. You could argue that two quarterbacks, Garrard and Grossman, enjoyed some level of success.
- It seems a bit incomplete and/or arbitrary to only include the final season of a QB's collegiate career. With redshirt seasons, early NFL departures, etc the last year of a players college career may see them at a different point in their trajectory arc. In addition, some quarterbacks had compiled high completion percentages in earlier years only to post a poor figure later or vice versa.
- Seasonal statistics can vary due to small sample size. For example, five completions across his 12 game senior season separated Jim Sorgi from being accurate to inaccurate. That is silly.
- How many of the 134 QBs that he did not label "inaccurate" succeeded in the NFL, by his standards? Is the hit rate meaningfully greater or less than that of the inaccurate list?
- Of the 31 QBs that he details, only 5 were selected in the first two rounds of their respective draft class. There were 53 quarterbacks in total selected in the top two rounds during that time, meaning that only 10% of those that we might consider to be reasonable prospects were what the author would consider to be inaccurate. Also, only 16% of those that fell within the confines of this study were relatively highly touted. Two points here; 1) this indicates that there have not been many cases of reasonable prospects that entered the league inaccurate, further limiting the sample from which to evaluate, 2) the fact that Josh "Prodigy" Allen will most likely be a top 10 draft selection, despite his completion %, buttresses the argument that he is a special prospect.
- David Garrard, an inaccurate collegiate passer by the author's definition, developed into a 64% NFL passer. Chad Henne developed into a 60% passer, Matt Flynn 62%, Patrick Ramsay 60%, etc. It appears that accuracy can be improved upon in the NFL. The author does not set out to prove that accuracy cannot be improved upon, rather he concludes that inaccuracy typically indicates a lack of professional success. One could argue that these quarterbacks did not fail because they were inaccurate, rather they failed because they were deficient in other areas.
- Again, it would stand to reason that if low completion % is a disqualifier then a high completion % should indicate greater success...have we looked into this? The R^2 of this regression would presumably be very poor. Correlation does not always imply causation.
I've never claimed that accuracy issues dont make Josh "Prodigy" Allen a risky prospect but to suggest that the completion % figure he put up during his junior season at Wyoming has all but written his NFL epitaph is much too simple and misguided.
Quote:
that Allen can't be a great QB in the pros. But they indicate that if he does so, he'll be an extreme outlier and will be going against something that has been pretty darn good at identifying who isn't going to make it at the next level.
That's a chance you take in the 3rd round. It isn't one you take at #2.
It would indicate nothing of the kind. It would indicate that the "analysis" was complete horseshit.
BTW, if Allen had completed 5 or 6 more passes his senior year, he would have made the "standard". That's what you are basing your decisions on: 5-6 completions.
Your math is off. He would need 15 more completions over 11 games, that's fairly significant. And that's just to hit the baseline number.
It's not the be-all end-all, but there's a pretty obvious correlation here. I put it in the same category as a WR that runs above 4.75 in the 40. You're not judging guys based solely on this one metric, but it's fair to use it as a baseline when there is historical relevance supporting it.
There are a ton of Baker Mayfield fanboys (and no doubt his agents) trying to push him up in the draft (and money) order even though he's a short, spread-style qb who has his own deficiencies and question marks. I will go out on a minor limb and say that the odds are more stacked against Mayfield than Allen.
Except that no one said it was a guarantee of failure, just that the odds are stacked greatly against anyone below that Mendoza line. As I said, I'm on the fence about Mayfield, as I'm not convinced he has the arm strength. That Allen has in spades, but accuracy is a tough thing to teach at that level.
Quote:
that Allen can't be a great QB in the pros. But they indicate that if he does so, he'll be an extreme outlier and will be going against something that has been pretty darn good at identifying who isn't going to make it at the next level.
That's a chance you take in the 3rd round. It isn't one you take at #2.
It would indicate nothing of the kind. It would indicate that the "analysis" was complete horseshit.
BTW, if Allen had completed 5 or 6 more passes his senior year, he would have made the "standard". That's what you are basing your decisions on: 5-6 completions.
It's only a variance of six completions because of how few passes he threw for the season. And that's only to get to the bare minimum to not fall into the failure class of the hypothesis, it still doesn't necessarily make him an accurate passer - he'd still be the most inaccurate of this year's top tier QB prospects by a fair margin even if he got those six incremental completions to reach the 58.5% threshold.
For reference, Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield, and even Rudolph all completed more passes than Allen even threw. That's another risk with Allen. If you want to cast your lot with a guy that threw a low number of passes, completed a low percentage of those passes, and did so against a lower level of competition, have at it. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. For me, that's just way too much risk at #2 when there is plenty of history that says it's unlikely to work out well.
With that, he's was the #1 overall.
And a very good NFL QB.
What a ridiculous statement. It's not binary - certain factors can strongly predict failure without the inverse strongly suggesting success.
Here's a loose (and lazy) analogy: if your GPA coming out of undergrad is below 3.0, it's extremely unlikely that you'll get into a top-tier graduate school. But just because you reach 3.0, it doesn't mean you'll get into a top-tier graduate school anyway, because that's not the only factor considered.
No one here has argued that completion % is the sole factor in forecasting success. Or even the best factor.
I asked the both of you to name a single QB drafted in the last 15 years who went on to succeed in the NFL without passing for 58.5%+ in his senior season. Since there have been 0.0 QBs to accomplish this remarkable feat in nearing two decades, and sensing the tightening of anuses diminishment of your Allen-boners, you gave us the following:
Matt Stafford (wrong)
Brett Favre (drafted in 1990, second round
Tom Brady (wrong and drafted in sixth round
All three of those guys are terrific QBs. So, nice picks. But you certainly didn't disprove anything.
With that, he's was the #1 overall.
And a very good NFL QB.
And 61% his final year. The hypothesis is entirely based around a QB's final year in college. This really isn't as complicated as you're making it.
Quote:
In comment 13815642 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
that Allen can't be a great QB in the pros. But they indicate that if he does so, he'll be an extreme outlier and will be going against something that has been pretty darn good at identifying who isn't going to make it at the next level.
That's a chance you take in the 3rd round. It isn't one you take at #2.
It would indicate nothing of the kind. It would indicate that the "analysis" was complete horseshit.
BTW, if Allen had completed 5 or 6 more passes his senior year, he would have made the "standard". That's what you are basing your decisions on: 5-6 completions.
Your math is off. He would need 15 more completions over 11 games, that's fairly significant. And that's just to hit the baseline number.
It's not the be-all end-all, but there's a pretty obvious correlation here. I put it in the same category as a WR that runs above 4.75 in the 40. You're not judging guys based solely on this one metric, but it's fair to use it as a baseline when there is historical relevance supporting it.
Good job.
Quote:
Indulge us and name one QB who broke that trend.
Brett Favre. Tom Brady. Ever hear of them?
Brady completed 61.9% of his passes in his college career and 61% in his final season.
Favre would qualify as an exception, but you're talking about someone drafted almost 3 decades ago.
Quote:
Well if 58.5% is no guarantee of success, it can't be a guarantee for failure either, but carry on.
What a ridiculous statement. It's not binary - certain factors can strongly predict failure without the inverse strongly suggesting success.
Here's a loose (and lazy) analogy: if your GPA coming out of undergrad is below 3.0, it's extremely unlikely that you'll get into a top-tier graduate school. But just because you reach 3.0, it doesn't mean you'll get into a top-tier graduate school anyway, because that's not the only factor considered.
Actually, I'll make it even simpler for you: if you don't have two hands, it's extremely unlikely that you'll be a successful NFL WR. But having two hands doesn't guarantee that you'll be a successful NFL WR. Does that make more sense for you?
Darnold confession that he has had confidence issues scares me off bigly
Mayfield I like but can't get past his stature
I'm leaning more towards Rosen or trading back and gaining picks and maybe get Lauletta in the 2nd round or even take a flyer on Jackson with the later 1st round pick
To get to 61% this year Allen needed 12 more completions.
12 completion on a severely overmatched team doesn't mean a thing.
To go at the top of this draft he'll need a strong private workout for the teams drafting up there. If he's accurate during the workouts nobody will care about these 12 completions.
Granted, Gerrard did make the pro bowl in 2009. And as a reward, the Jags drafted Blaine Gabbert with the 10th overall pick in 2010.
No one here has argued that completion % is the sole factor in forecasting success. Or even the best factor.
I asked the both of you to name a single QB drafted in the last 15 years who went on to succeed in the NFL without passing for 58.5%+ in his senior season. Since there have been 0.0 QBs to accomplish this remarkable feat in nearing two decades, and sensing the tightening of anuses diminishment of your Allen-boners, you gave us the following:
Matt Stafford (wrong)
Brett Favre (drafted in 1990, second round
Tom Brady (wrong and drafted in sixth round
All three of those guys are terrific QBs. So, nice picks. But you certainly didn't disprove anything.
To get to 61% this year Allen needed 12 more completions.
12 completion on a severely overmatched team doesn't mean a thing.
To go at the top of this draft he'll need a strong private workout for the teams drafting up there. If he's accurate during the workouts nobody will care about these 12 completions.
Final season. Pre-draft season. People are using "senior year" as a substitute term, but that's obvious. You're just being obtuse.
Granted, Gerrard did make the pro bowl in 2009. And as a reward, the Jags drafted Blaine Gabbert with the 10th overall pick in 2010.
They'll care when he sucks at the NFL level because he's not an accurate passer and it's the absolute core competency for the position.
Quote:
The guy was a career backup who only started by virtue of the fact that Byron Lefrwich made up entirely of Swarovski Crystal. True story.
Granted, Gerrard did make the pro bowl in 2009. And as a reward, the Jags drafted Blaine Gabbert with the 10th overall pick in 2010.
Ahh, so a quarterback that had success but not enough success for you. What are the odds of a top 10 pick going on to make a Pro Bowl?
You want to make a point? Make a point. Do your own research.
You'd be okay with that? ecause that's what we're talking about here. The #2 pick. We have a LT in Flowers who was drafted top 10 and has started running on three years and people are ready call a bust.
BBIs panties are still in a bunch over Rhett Bomar and Ryan Nassib washing out. And you'd be okay with a top 5 QB who ends up being a backup?
So it's "last year"?
Fine. He needed 6 more completions to hit this number.
That means nothing. 6 completions. 58.5%. Means nothing.
He's got rare tools. Can he make the throws accurately enough in the NFL to be a top QB? I don't know but those 6 extra completions mean nothing to qualify or disqualify the prospect ESPECIALLY for a guy on an overmatched team.
He had some struggles but he also had some games where his team made it impossible. They couldn't block Oregon. Remove that game alone and he'll hit your 58.5% final year number. Does that help?
So it's "last year"?
Fine. He needed 6 more completions to hit this number.
That means nothing. 6 completions. 58.5%. Means nothing.
He's got rare tools. Can he make the throws accurately enough in the NFL to be a top QB? I don't know but those 6 extra completions mean nothing to qualify or disqualify the prospect ESPECIALLY for a guy on an overmatched team.
He had some struggles but he also had some games where his team made it impossible. They couldn't block Oregon. Remove that game alone and he'll hit your 58.5% final year number. Does that help?
I know you tend to favor guys with rare physical tools, but that's not the end-all. How has it worked out for the last few guys you've touted?
Quote:
In comment 13815739 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
Indulge us and name one QB who broke that trend.
Brett Favre. Tom Brady. Ever hear of them?
Brady completed 61.9% of his passes in his college career and 61% in his final season.
Favre would qualify as an exception, but you're talking about someone drafted almost 3 decades ago.
So it's "last year"?
Fine. He needed 6 more completions to hit this number.
That means nothing. 6 completions. 58.5%. Means nothing.
He's got rare tools. Can he make the throws accurately enough in the NFL to be a top QB? I don't know but those 6 extra completions mean nothing to qualify or disqualify the prospect ESPECIALLY for a guy on an overmatched team.
He had some struggles but he also had some games where his team made it impossible. They couldn't block Oregon. Remove that game alone and he'll hit your 58.5% final year number. Does that help?
Are you comfortable spending the #2 pick on a guy based solely on projection of tools?
Are you punking us?
Quote:
Thats what I read.
So it's "last year"?
Fine. He needed 6 more completions to hit this number.
That means nothing. 6 completions. 58.5%. Means nothing.
He's got rare tools. Can he make the throws accurately enough in the NFL to be a top QB? I don't know but those 6 extra completions mean nothing to qualify or disqualify the prospect ESPECIALLY for a guy on an overmatched team.
He had some struggles but he also had some games where his team made it impossible. They couldn't block Oregon. Remove that game alone and he'll hit your 58.5% final year number. Does that help?
Yes, you should tout guys without physical tools. WTF? I can't believe the nonsense posted here sometimes.
Tim Carter had physical tools. Adrien Robinson had physical tools. Sean Bennett had physical tools. Marvin Austin had physical tools. How were they as football players? And for a recent KWALL fave, DeVante Parker has the physical tools. How's he doing so far?
Josh Allen has rare physical tools. And lacks the singular core competency for his position. The most important thing a QB has to do is complete passes. Allen has not shown a consistent ability to do that at a level that would be predictive of NFL success.
No one is telling you that you can't wish really hard that he'll be the one that bucks that trend. You're welcome to root for whatever prospect you want.
Quote:
In comment 13815806 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
The guy was a career backup who only started by virtue of the fact that Byron Lefrwich made up entirely of Swarovski Crystal. True story.
Granted, Gerrard did make the pro bowl in 2009. And as a reward, the Jags drafted Blaine Gabbert with the 10th overall pick in 2010.
Ahh, so a quarterback that had success but not enough success for you. What are the odds of a top 10 pick going on to make a Pro Bowl?
You want to make a point? Make a point. Do your own research.
Quote:
In comment 13815817 BurberryManning said:
Quote:
In comment 13815806 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
The guy was a career backup who only started by virtue of the fact that Byron Lefrwich made up entirely of Swarovski Crystal. True story.
Granted, Gerrard did make the pro bowl in 2009. And as a reward, the Jags drafted Blaine Gabbert with the 10th overall pick in 2010.
Ahh, so a quarterback that had success but not enough success for you. What are the odds of a top 10 pick going on to make a Pro Bowl?
You want to make a point? Make a point. Do your own research.
It's a rhetorical question in a sense and I've debunked shoddy research already.
I don't think "debunk" means what you think it means. You should answer MO's question instead.
Quote:
In comment 13815865 KWALL2 said:
Quote:
Thats what I read.
So it's "last year"?
Fine. He needed 6 more completions to hit this number.
That means nothing. 6 completions. 58.5%. Means nothing.
He's got rare tools. Can he make the throws accurately enough in the NFL to be a top QB? I don't know but those 6 extra completions mean nothing to qualify or disqualify the prospect ESPECIALLY for a guy on an overmatched team.
He had some struggles but he also had some games where his team made it impossible. They couldn't block Oregon. Remove that game alone and he'll hit your 58.5% final year number. Does that help?
Yes, you should tout guys without physical tools. WTF? I can't believe the nonsense posted here sometimes.
Tim Carter had physical tools. Adrien Robinson had physical tools. Sean Bennett had physical tools. Marvin Austin had physical tools. How were they as football players? And for a recent KWALL fave, DeVante Parker has the physical tools. How's he doing so far?
Josh Allen has rare physical tools. And lacks the singular core competency for his position. The most important thing a QB has to do is complete passes. Allen has not shown a consistent ability to do that at a level that would be predictive of NFL success.
No one is telling you that you can't wish really hard that he'll be the one that bucks that trend. You're welcome to root for whatever prospect you want.
Quote:
In comment 13815821 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 13815817 BurberryManning said:
Quote:
In comment 13815806 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
The guy was a career backup who only started by virtue of the fact that Byron Lefrwich made up entirely of Swarovski Crystal. True story.
Granted, Gerrard did make the pro bowl in 2009. And as a reward, the Jags drafted Blaine Gabbert with the 10th overall pick in 2010.
Ahh, so a quarterback that had success but not enough success for you. What are the odds of a top 10 pick going on to make a Pro Bowl?
You want to make a point? Make a point. Do your own research.
It's a rhetorical question in a sense and I've debunked shoddy research already.
I don't think "debunk" means what you think it means. You should answer MO's question instead.
Quote:
In comment 13815817 BurberryManning said:
Quote:
In comment 13815806 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
The guy was a career backup who only started by virtue of the fact that Byron Lefrwich made up entirely of Swarovski Crystal. True story.
Granted, Gerrard did make the pro bowl in 2009. And as a reward, the Jags drafted Blaine Gabbert with the 10th overall pick in 2010.
Ahh, so a quarterback that had success but not enough success for you. What are the odds of a top 10 pick going on to make a Pro Bowl?
You want to make a point? Make a point. Do your own research.
It's a rhetorical question in a sense and I've debunked shoddy research already.
Why not answer an actual question? If Josh Allen (#2 overall, NYG) turns out to be David Gerrard, are you content with the pick?
Or, by all means, continue asking yourself questions.
Quote:
In comment 13815886 HomerJones45 said:
Quote:
In comment 13815865 KWALL2 said:
Quote:
Thats what I read.
So it's "last year"?
Fine. He needed 6 more completions to hit this number.
That means nothing. 6 completions. 58.5%. Means nothing.
He's got rare tools. Can he make the throws accurately enough in the NFL to be a top QB? I don't know but those 6 extra completions mean nothing to qualify or disqualify the prospect ESPECIALLY for a guy on an overmatched team.
He had some struggles but he also had some games where his team made it impossible. They couldn't block Oregon. Remove that game alone and he'll hit your 58.5% final year number. Does that help?
Yes, you should tout guys without physical tools. WTF? I can't believe the nonsense posted here sometimes.
Tim Carter had physical tools. Adrien Robinson had physical tools. Sean Bennett had physical tools. Marvin Austin had physical tools. How were they as football players? And for a recent KWALL fave, DeVante Parker has the physical tools. How's he doing so far?
Josh Allen has rare physical tools. And lacks the singular core competency for his position. The most important thing a QB has to do is complete passes. Allen has not shown a consistent ability to do that at a level that would be predictive of NFL success.
No one is telling you that you can't wish really hard that he'll be the one that bucks that trend. You're welcome to root for whatever prospect you want.
You must sweat Kirk Cousins?
What would even give you that impression? And "sweat"? Is it 1990 in your world?
You'd be okay with that? ecause that's what we're talking about here. The #2 pick. We have a LT in Flowers who was drafted top 10 and has started running on three years and people are ready call a bust.
BBIs panties are still in a bunch over Rhett Bomar and Ryan Nassib washing out. And you'd be okay with a top 5 QB who ends up being a backup?
"I asked the both of you to name a single QB drafted in the last 15 years who went on to succeed in the NFL without passing for 58.5%+ in his senior season. Since there have been 0.0 QBs to accomplish this remarkable feat in nearing two decades..."
You did not define success in your challenge, why are you now introducing the #2 pick as a hurdle of sorts? Dont ascribe your myopic fixation on the Giants to our broader debate.
I sincerely doubt you will find anyone that does not consider David Garrard to have enjoyed success as an NFL quarterback.
Or did you forget what this thread is about?
Quote:
In comment 13815894 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 13815886 HomerJones45 said:
Quote:
In comment 13815865 KWALL2 said:
Quote:
Thats what I read.
So it's "last year"?
Fine. He needed 6 more completions to hit this number.
That means nothing. 6 completions. 58.5%. Means nothing.
He's got rare tools. Can he make the throws accurately enough in the NFL to be a top QB? I don't know but those 6 extra completions mean nothing to qualify or disqualify the prospect ESPECIALLY for a guy on an overmatched team.
He had some struggles but he also had some games where his team made it impossible. They couldn't block Oregon. Remove that game alone and he'll hit your 58.5% final year number. Does that help?
Yes, you should tout guys without physical tools. WTF? I can't believe the nonsense posted here sometimes.
Tim Carter had physical tools. Adrien Robinson had physical tools. Sean Bennett had physical tools. Marvin Austin had physical tools. How were they as football players? And for a recent KWALL fave, DeVante Parker has the physical tools. How's he doing so far?
Josh Allen has rare physical tools. And lacks the singular core competency for his position. The most important thing a QB has to do is complete passes. Allen has not shown a consistent ability to do that at a level that would be predictive of NFL success.
No one is telling you that you can't wish really hard that he'll be the one that bucks that trend. You're welcome to root for whatever prospect you want.
You must sweat Kirk Cousins?
What would even give you that impression? And "sweat"? Is it 1990 in your world?
Kirk Cousins, he of an all-time completion rate but short on ultimate team success, seems like he would fit the bill for you. The lack of qualifiers to your statement is begging me to recall prolific completion % champions such as Chase Daniel and Nate Sudfeld to the conversation but I'm sure you meant starting quarterbacks that've accrued a certain number of pass attempts, right?
Or did you forget what this thread is about?
As for your concerns pertaining the #2 pick, my answer would be entirely different.
And yes, I'm referring to starting QBs, obviously. That's kind of the point, since the context here is a discussion about a QB prospect who could be in consideration for our #2 overall pick. I didn't think that needed to be explained.
If I was able to make million sitting the bench, I'd consider it a success. If I'm an organization that's sitting on the #2 pick of the draft, I'm expecting a fuckload more value than career backup. That's significant cap commitment for a guaranteed 4 years, which might take that long to teach the kid his dick from his elbow.
I'm all for shooting for the moon in the first round. Dynamic guys who can change a game. Don't play the chalk. Take chances. But this is the kind of risky move that gets people fired. I'm not sure a first year GM is going to take a developmental core position with so many flags.
And yes, I'm referring to starting QBs, obviously. That's kind of the point, since the context here is a discussion about a QB prospect who could be in consideration for our #2 overall pick. I didn't think that needed to be explained.
Without being hamstrung by an arbitrary number of years- Michael Vick was worthy of a top choice. Vick's complete value as a football player transcended accuracy issues.
The point is that an arbitrary figure backed into by a small self-selected sample is simply a ridiculous way to guide player evaluations. When a variable is positioned to have extremely high explanatory power below one level (58.5) but very low explanatory power above there above...its probably a poor model. The reddit user clearly put time into his analysis but its far from reliable
Quote:
Which of the QBs on the <58.5% list had any success by the definition you just gave? Who are the big winners on that list?
And yes, I'm referring to starting QBs, obviously. That's kind of the point, since the context here is a discussion about a QB prospect who could be in consideration for our #2 overall pick. I didn't think that needed to be explained.
Without being hamstrung by an arbitrary number of years- Michael Vick was worthy of a top choice. Vick's complete value as a football player transcended accuracy issues.
The point is that an arbitrary figure backed into by a small self-selected sample is simply a ridiculous way to guide player evaluations. When a variable is positioned to have extremely high explanatory power below one level (58.5) but very low explanatory power above there above...its probably a poor model. The reddit user clearly put time into his analysis but its far from reliable
Five career playoff games, with a record of 2-3. If that's the best you can do to show a winner with poor accuracy (and you're right - Vick possessed a skill set that did transcend accuracy issues; Allen does not appear to possess a similar ancillary skill set), it hardly disproves the hypothesis.
I do agree with you that the 58.5% threshold, on its face, seems arbitrary because there isn't much explanatory balance above and below the line. You could probably apply some sensitivity testing to it by deviations from that threshold to see if there the success/failure rate is related to the variance from the axis value. Regardless, the research does seem to merit some consideration.
The fact is, in order to be a successful NFL player, a lot of factors need to work in concert. But to be a failure, only one of those factors needs to be missing. Some are more valuable than others. Fundamentally, accuracy is the most important factor for a QB, IMO.
Also, I'm not touting him. if Giants go QB I want it to be Rosen.
I do think Allen will go 1 or 2. There are concerns and accuracy is one but there is much more to the completion % with this guy. Will depend on the private workouts. He can answer the accuracy question with some teams and go 1 overall.
If I’m DG I’d draft Darnold or Rosen. There’s a bit of self-preservation involved but it’s less likely you’ll be second guessed on a former top recruit, from a power program, that checks off the boxes re: production. They are safer players. Even Mike Tannenbaum got some burn with Sanchez.
As a Giants fan I prefer Darnold and then Rosen because I’m risk averse. Rosen’s injury history and attitude issues (anecdotally) worry me but his arm and football acumen appear solid.
As a football fan I prefer Allen. I enjoy his style of play, I believe in his talent, I appreciate his personality/approach to football, and I think that he has a lot more to offer up on the gridiron.
You can overlook the stat. You can say the stat is shit. But if you take a guy at #2 who fails to meet the criteria that not a single successful QB has had since 2002, then you have to at least acknowledge it is a MONUMENTAL risk to take at #2.
That was the point. Not trying to prop David Garrard up to be anything than mediocre or make the case that Rex Grossman didn't suck.
Boil it down and there's one conclusion. Draft Allen with a huge red flag. And you do that at a position of #2. It takes brass balls to be wrong there, because the data shows you likely will be.