Josh Allen is an ELITE QB

[VanS]

5 hours ago, Elky said:

QB A: 123/203 (60.5%), 1469 yards (7.23 YPA), 11 TD, 1 INT

QB B: 98/138 (71.0%), 1276 yards (9.24 YPA), 10 TD, 4 INT

These numbers are from week 7 until now.

A is Josh Allen. B is Ryan Tannehill. Do you think Ryan Tannehill is an ELITE QB?

No because we've seen enough of Tannehill to know he's not good.  Josh Allen on the other hand is just in his second year.  

[VanS]

5 hours ago, SmittyBacall said:

I don't understand this narrative either. Did you not watch the game yesterday? He was consistently throwing to wide open receivers all over the field. Beasley was shredding whoever lined up on him. It doesn't matter if none of them are probowlers or household names, the Bills coordinator is doing an excellent job scheming them open, and the receivers are creating separation. Period. 

And this isn't to discredit how well Allen played either, because it's obvious he's playing well and finding his form. He's consistently finding the open man and delivering a good ball. But to call out the Bills receivers like they're somehow hampering Allen is ridiculous. They aren't. From the play calling, to the players, to the scheme, the Bills offense is a well oiled machine right now. To lay that only at the feet of Allen is completely disingenuous and goes to show how ridiculous this thread is. 

 

I disagree.  I saw Allen's arm strength zipping the ball into holes other QBs can't fit the ball into.  That TD throw to Beasley was a rocket inbetween the zone defenders.  Less arm strength and it doesn't get made.  Same on that critical 3rd down throw to Beasley backed up inside their 20.  Then you have to factor in Allen's running ability which opens things up on the backside for his receivers.

Very few QBs could produce with the guys Josh Allen is throwing to.  They are among the least talented offensive units in the NFL.  And by far the least talented among playoff teams.  Give Josh Allen the weapons Dak had yesterday and I imagine most in this thread would be singing a different tune.

[VanS]

3 hours ago, SkippyX said:

Wilson has done it for a long time with a very bad O-line and some mediocre WRs / TEs and no special RBs after Beast Mode got old/retired/went to Oakland.

• In 2017 he had more rushing TDs than the rest of the team combined and he had more rushing yards than the top 2 RBs combined.

Wilson is a legit HoF QB who is underrated if anything.

I agree.  I think Russ is a first ballot HOFer.  Josh Allen has the talent to be better though.

[NYJets4716]

22 minutes ago, bigbadbuff said:

Point for everyone is we won’t know how good he is for another couple of years. Goff and Wentz were golden children, now Goff looks like the second worst QB in the league (trubs) and Wentz is inconsistent AF. Baker was the next best thing, then he’s a turnover machine. It’s going to take a good 4-5 years to know what they truly are. I’m good with seeing a 2nd year QB progress to a middle of the road starter for now. I mean if we all said Josh Allen was a middle of the road guy in year two everyone would deem that a success. Keep growing, and keep improving. That’s all we can ask for. Nothing more, nothing less.

We can’t ding him for having a good line like the Jets fan here is doing when he wasn’t given the benefit of the doubt last year with a bottom 5 offensive line and being forced to play hero ball.

He went from having a bum offensive line, a washed Shady McCoy, Robert foster and Zay Jones to what some (Jets fan) is calling a great cast? I mean i love me some John Brown Beasley and a rookie Singletary but come on, that’s not a top tier weapon group, not even close.

but alas, it’s NFL Gen so everything is black and white 

Because he has a great ol and great defense,  that's more important than wrs. I've seen Sanchez win a bunch with those 2 things.

[bigbadbuff]

Just now, NYJets4716 said:

Because he has a great ol and great defense,  that's more important than wrs. I've seen Sanchez win a bunch with those 2 things.

Where were his excuses last year when the o line was awful? You can’t play both ends of the stick.

[Jakuvious]

7 hours ago, Trentwannabe said:

I definitely expect the off-season talk to be that the Bills will be this years Bears in 2020. Though I am genuinely curious what stats your're referring too. 

I....listed them. SoS, games lost to injury, AV lost to injury, and expected wins. Pretty much everything that points to regression except for a high win total in close games.

[Trentwannabe]

Just now, Jakuvious said:

I....listed them. SoS, games lost to injury, AV lost to injury, and expected wins. Pretty much everything that points to regression except for a high win total in close games.

Ahh I see.

Thought it was more tangible type stats like turnovers or something similar to the Bears in 2018. SOS is really hard to say because what looks tough right now could be a cake walk. I imagine this time last year the Bills schedule looked worse than it turned out to be. 

So are you predicting the Bills will see more injuries next year and more serious ones? Do teams typically go from little to no injuries and then see a flood of them? Not sure I understand the relevance of the stat in 2019 and in regards to a regression in 2020.

[NYJets4716]

14 minutes ago, bigbadbuff said:

Where were his excuses last year when the o line was awful? You can’t play both ends of the stick.

He was garbage last year and his defense was great.

[bigbadbuff]

8 minutes ago, NYJets4716 said:

He was garbage last year and his defense was great.

So you ignore that he had dog **** on offense to work with? You’re the type to pick and choose so no point in going back and forth.

[Soko]

7 hours ago, VanS said:

Winning has always been the barometer of judging who is elite in sports.  Especially at the QB position. 

 

7 hours ago, VanS said:

He is elite because he's producing with almost no talent around him on the offensive side of the ball. 

So apparently: 

1A) We’ve seen enough of Tannehill to know he’s not elite.

1B) Josh Allen in his first season and a half+, is an elite quarterback RIGHT NOW. 

1C) But also - we should exclude Allen’s rookie season W/L because that’s reaching. 

2A) Who cares about stats? 

2B) Allen is elite because he’s producing.

3A) Wins are “the barometer” for judging who is elite. 

3B) Josh Allen is elite because of a couple passing totals since Week 5. 

4A) Jets, Browns, Rams fans in here - must be jealous and biased.

4B) *Let’s completely ignore the absolute refusal to backtrack on pre-draft opinions that some may have had on Josh Allen*. 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Yin-Yang

[ronjon1990]

6 hours ago, HoboRocket said:

@VanS was bullish on Josh Allen heading into the season:

Josh Allen will be one of the leading candidates for league MVP this year.  So easily him.

I like Darnold too.  He's gonna be a really good franchise QB.  But Josh Allen is on another level.  He'll be on that Patrick Mahomes tier.

That makes this thread all the more comical. 

He isn't leading the league for MVP and isn't anywhere close to it. 

He's also not anywhere near the Patrick Mahomes tier. 

Derek Carr has more yards, 1 fewer passing TD, 2 fewer INTs, more completions, fewer attempts, 10% higher completion rating, 11 fewer sacks, 52 fewer sack yds, 7 fewer fumbles, more yds per attempt, and a higher 1st down per attempt % than Allen with far inferior weapons (we literally took a Bills castaway), missing 1/2 of his O-line for large stretches, playing against a tougher schedule, and still losing only two more games to date with the chance for a win to close the W/L gap even more and a guarantee to further pull away in several statistical areas this weekend. 

He isn't called ELITE even by his biggest supporters. 

Oh, and his D is garbage beyond belief. 

What this is all about is VanS being a stopped clock and gloating about the fact that Josh Allen hasn't sucked beyond belief, context be damned. The thread's title alone "Josh Allen is an ELITE QB" says it all. Josh Allen may be an "elite" player, but QB? No way. 

[SkippyX]

1 hour ago, VanS said:

No because we've seen enough of Tannehill to know he's not good.  Josh Allen on the other hand is just in his second year.  

So you write off an 89.5 rated QB after his rookie season because he could not win in Miami?

111 TDs to 62 picks after his rookie year on bad Miami teams means he's not good?

A rating of 111.4 this year with a 4-1 record when the #2 overall pick in 2015 was 2-4 with a 91.7 rating does not count because you say so?

The 25th highest rated qualifier for passer rating in NFL history is just bad?

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by SkippyX

[Tk3]

7 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

He isn't called ELITE even by his biggest supporters. 

To be fair... VanS appears to be his biggest supporter

[ronjon1990]

1 minute ago, Tk3 said:

To be fair... VanS appears to be his biggest supporter

Not Allen. Derek Carr.

Although if Carr goes on a win streak at all and Gruden switches the offense to RPO, I have few doubts that would be the case. 

[Jakuvious]

52 minutes ago, Trentwannabe said:

Ahh I see.

Thought it was more tangible type stats like turnovers or something similar to the Bears in 2018. SOS is really hard to say because what looks tough right now could be a cake walk. I imagine this time last year the Bills schedule looked worse than it turned out to be. 

So are you predicting the Bills will see more injuries next year and more serious ones? Do teams typically go from little to no injuries and then see a flood of them? Not sure I understand the relevance of the stat in 2019 and in regards to a regression in 2020.

It isn't about the difficulty of the schedule next year, just the ease of it this year.

Things that are not under a team's control tend to be things that regress to the mean. So strength of schedule, for instance, with the exception of the two games controlled by divisional ranking, basically comes down to luck. This means that over time, statistically, it is going to trend towards average. You get the occasional exception or outlier, but these things particularly tend to even out over time. Every team will have some years with easy schedules, some years with tough ones, but will mostly have average opposition overall. So I don't even know who the Bills have on their schedule next year, to be honest. But probability says it will be tougher than what they have played, at least so far, this year. As so far they've had the easiest schedule in the NFL, and the odds of that repeating are...low. How much tougher could be a point of discussion, but it will be tougher.

Injuries are a similar matter. With again, a few outliers or exceptions, due to either luck or maybe just having a fragile or injury prone core of players, games lost to injury are going to trend towards average over time. It is basically luck. A small difference in force or angle of a tackle can be the difference between walking a tackle off and tearing an ACL. Who a QB targets, a missed block, a poorly prepped field, all borderline random occurrences that can prevent or cause a potential injury. For the most part, how many injuries a team suffers is not really a controllabe outcome. So again, probability says it will trend towards average over time. Right now Buffalo sits at about 80 games lost to injury, as a team. League average is probably somewhere in the 120 - 125 range. So they've been lucky there so far. It isn't guaranteed, that they will have more, but it is the statistically likely scenario.

Where the injuries really stand out though, is less the quantity, and more the quality. I don't have access to the numbers because I don't pay for a subscription, but there is a site and Twitter called ManGamesLost which tracks team injuries. They use PFR's AV to try to assess the value of those injuries. So for the Chiefs, losing Tyreek Hill for 4 games is more impactful than losing Alex Okafor for 4 games. They're both starters, but Hill is the more valuable player by far. In this metric, though, Buffalo appears to be second luckiest, in a sense. Virtually no impact players have gone down to injury for Buffalo this year, and that's....unlikely. Which makes sustaining it unlikely as well.

So none of these things are guarantees. But a very fortunate performance in these kinds of metrics is hard to sustain because it's essentially luck. And these things, historically, point to regression the following year because of that. Last year Chicago had the easiest schedule in the NFC and the least games lost to injury in the NFC. Two years ago, the Jags had the easiest schedule, the Falcons had the fewest injuries. The year before that, well, the Pats had the easiest schedule, and they kind of break all the rules.