Better QB Right Now: Lamar Jackson or Josh Allen

[Soggust]

58 minutes ago, Soko said:

Are performances of NFL QBs completely random, with zero connectivity or consistency (like casino numbers/colors)? If that were the case, wouldn’t Sam Darnold and Lamar Jackson have the same MVP odds? Wouldn’t Patrick Mahomes and Justin Fields be equally as likely to be playoff performers?

It’s not really a talent question and I don’t know why that’s even brought up. Yes, X level of talent is X level of talent (although how we perceive that talent can change). It’s about performance. Why would I treat someone who has done XYZ, maybe several times, the same exact way I treat someone who never has? 

Can’t really wrap my head around that idea. To each their own, I guess. 

?? Well hold on - we weren't comparing Sam Darnold and Lamar Jackson or Patrick Mahomes and Justin Fields in your example, we were comparing:

Quote

Nick Foles vs another similar caliber QB

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by that, but I assumed you were implying talent by "caliber", right?

[Soko]

3 minutes ago, Soggust said:

?? Well hold on - we weren't comparing Sam Darnold and Lamar Jackson or Patrick Mahomes and Justin Fields in your example, we were comparing:

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by that, but I assumed you were implying talent by "caliber", right?

Yes, one that has (in this example) maybe either zero or bad playoff performances (as most Nick Foles caliber QBs would, like Fitzpatrick). So two QBs of similar quality, but one with zero/bad playoff performances, and one that has shown the ability to catch lightning in a bottle. 

The implication here isn’t that Nick Foles is suddenly more talented than the other guy. It’s that, in the postseason, I’m going to be a lot more mindful of a QB who has shown good playoff ability vs one that typically falters, all else being equal. It’s the complete opposite end of the randomness spectrum that casino gambling is.

[Soggust]

32 minutes ago, Soko said:

Yes, one that has (in this example) maybe either zero or bad playoff performances (as most Nick Foles caliber QBs would, like Fitzpatrick). So two QBs of similar quality, but one with zero/bad playoff performances, and one that has shown the ability to catch lightning in a bottle. 

The implication here isn’t that Nick Foles is suddenly more talented than the other guy. It’s that, in the postseason, I’m going to be a lot more mindful of a QB who has shown good playoff ability vs one that typically falters, all else being equal. It’s the complete opposite end of the randomness spectrum that casino gambling is.

Idk it's hard to really come up with hypotheticals because players "similar quality" is very subjective and doing a lot of heavy lifting when we give one guy playoff production and the other guy none, because that inherently means he's not as good in my stubborn production-based mind lol. But I would have taken Manning in 05 over Brady. I would have taken Stroud over Flacco last year going into the playoff game. I would take Rivers over Eli every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

To me it's simple. When Lamar starts a future playoff game, he is the combination of 83+ games started*, not just 6 playoff games. 

Likewise, when Allen starts a future playoff game, I think he is the combination of 103+ games started*, not just 10 playoff games.

So sure - prior playoff success matters because it affects what he is considered to be, but it's just another small part of the equation to me. And it certainly isn't more deterministic of what happens tomorrow (in the roulette sense), given the small sample sizes, than the entire resume. And if we think two resumes (as a whole) are ballpark similar-ish, then I think the "who would you rather have" is negligible and I'd certainly personally rather have the reigning MVP. 

* - with a recency bias

[Soko]

22 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Idk it's hard to really come up with hypotheticals because players "similar quality" is very subjective and doing a lot of heavy lifting when we give one guy playoff production and the other guy none, because that inherently means he's not as good in my stubborn production-based mind lol. But I would have taken Manning in 05 over Brady. I would have taken Stroud over Flacco last year going into the playoff game. I would take Rivers over Eli every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

If post-2005, you said Peyton would be the better playoff performer over Brady, you’d be wrong. That’s factual, it’s not really a “flavor”, we have the hindsight to prove it. Are Flacco and Stroud similar overall QBs, to you? To each their own. Or do you mean prime Flacco? 

Hypotheticals aside, I just want to hear the rationale behind viewing two players of similar caliber equally, when one routinely shrinks and one routinely rises/stays himself. If it’s completely random then why do any of us pick games or have sports discussions? It is volatile with many variables, absolutely. It’s also not a roulette wheel. How you perform in XYZ conditions has to be a factor. This is like saying my kid who struggles in math tests has the same likelihood of acing his final as the kid who routinely gets As on his math tests.

22 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Likewise, when Allen starts a future playoff game, I think he is the combination of 103+ games started*, not just 10 playoff games.

So sure - prior playoff success matters because it affects what he is considered to be, but it's just another small part of the equation to me. And it certainly isn't more deterministic of what happens tomorrow (in the roulette sense), given the small sample sizes, than the entire resume. And if we think two resumes (as a whole) are ballpark similar-ish, then I think the "who would you rather have" is negligible and I'd certainly personally rather have the reigning MVP. 

* - with a recency bias

If two players have negligible differences in the regular season (which I’m kinda “giving” In this debate, I still think Josh is better in the regular season overall but for the sake of this discussion I’m calling them virtually equal), why wouldn’t I go with a guy who routinely plays to his level in the postseason vs a guy who typically falls flatter than his usual self? You can only split these hairs when it’s that close. Thats why Eli Manning vs Peyton Manning doesn’t work, because the there’s an albatross between the two of them. Brady in his prime (after 2005, btw) vs Peyton in his prime, two guys who are of similar caliber? Brady was undeniably the better, more consistent playoff performer. Why would I not split hairs?

Deterministic makes it sounds dependent, which it isn’t. Being good in one playoff game doesn’t mean you’ll be good in the next. Being good in the next, doesn’t require being good in the previous. So no, it isn’t literally deterministic. But it’s sports, not statistics. Some guys play better in the playoffs, some guys play worse. Is the sole reason because it’s a postseason game? Obviously not, other things go into it. But I’ve yet to hear how it’s a completely random, spontaneous happen stance that these players apparently have zero control over.

[Soggust]

31 minutes ago, Soko said:

If post-2005, you said Peyton would be the better playoff performer over Brady, you’d be wrong. That’s factual, it’s not really a “flavor”, we have the hindsight to prove it. Are Flacco and Stroud similar overall QBs, to you? To each their own. Or do you mean prime Flacco? 

I'm specifically saying Peyton was NOT a better playoff performer, but yet I would still have taken him over Brady to play a game against the Aliens to save humanity in 05, because I believe he was a better player overall. 

Likewise, a proven playoff guy in Flacco wasn't swaying me over who I believed to be a better player in Stroud, but maybe you don't consider their 2023's close enough for comparison and I think that's reasonable.

 

36 minutes ago, Soko said:

Hypotheticals aside, I just want to hear the rationale behind viewing two players of similar caliber equally, when one routinely shrinks and one routinely rises/stays himself. If it’s completely random then why do any of us pick games or have sports discussions? It is volatile with many variables, absolutely. It’s also not a roulette wheel. How you perform in XYZ conditions has to be a factor. This is like saying my kid who struggles in math tests has the same likelihood of acing his final as the kid who routinely gets As on his math tests.

I am unsure how we can call them similar caliber if one guy is routinely outperforming the other, unless there are other factors at play, which is kinda what makes this whole debate moot.

 

47 minutes ago, Soko said:

If two players have negligible differences in the regular season (which I’m kinda “giving” In this debate, I still think Josh is better in the regular season overall but for the sake of this discussion I’m calling them virtually equal), why wouldn’t I go with a guy who routinely plays to his level in the postseason vs a guy who typically falls flatter than his usual self? You can only split these hairs when it’s that close. Thats why Eli Manning vs Peyton Manning doesn’t work, because the there’s an albatross between the two of them. Brady in his prime (after 2005, btw) vs Peyton in his prime, two guys who are of similar caliber? Brady was undeniably the better, more consistent playoff performer. Why would I not split hairs?

Let me just make this clear for the record -

I think having Josh at #2 is fine. I don't agree, but it's certainly not out of line. I personally think he's #3.

But in my mind, it has a million times more to do with the bajillion TDs he's created over the last few years and less to do with the 13 second game, for example.

 

41 minutes ago, Soko said:

Deterministic makes it sounds dependent, which it isn’t. Being good in one playoff game doesn’t mean you’ll be good in the next. Being good in the next, doesn’t require being good in the previous. So no, it isn’t literally deterministic. But it’s sports, not statistics. Some guys play better in the playoffs, some guys play worse. Is the sole reason because it’s a postseason game? Obviously not, other things go into it. But I’ve yet to hear how it’s a completely random, spontaneous happen stance that these players apparently have zero control over.

I think the onus is on proving it's NOT another random game and that professional football players somehow run faster or jump higher or play harder or want it more when the playoffs are on the line vs random stuff just happening like it does every single week of the NFL season.

It's a harder schedule, sure, but I just don't believe playoff games are SO significantly different than a regular game that they deserve their own category and like 40% of the argument or whatever people give it, personally.

[Soggust]

1 hour ago, Soko said:

 

Oooooh just thought - maybe Purdy/Dak is the right example?

Presumably, you would confidently take Purdy over Dak in a playoff game tomorrow?

There's no ace up my sleeve or follow ups here - I think it's a fair position. 

I just think I would take Dak, even in a playoff game, over Purdy tomorrow pretty confidently, because he had a better 2023 imo (and it was close).

(as I said from the beginning, I know I have the minority perspective here)

Edited August 15 by Soggust

[iknowcool]

22 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

Again, we are talking about 2 games in the last 3+ years. One of which was objectively good and one that was objectively bad. How much should an evaluation change for the Chiefs game and others from early 2021 at the latest? It's part of the equation that should not be ignored, but it is not a lot of data.

So we can't say Josh Allen is a better postseason performer because Lamar hasn't played in many of them the last 3 years?

If we are doing that, then Lamar's 1st MVP is irrelevant to the discussion as it too was a long time ago.  And that only strengthens Allen's argument and the gap between the two.

And I'm in no way trying to take away from Lamar's good game against Houston.  It WAS a very good game, but I'd also argue that it didn't really answer any questions about if he could get it done through the air in the postseason.  Only 2 times he's thrown for more than 200 yards in the playoffs, and both times he did it with 37+ pass attempts and a sub-55 CMP%.  If we want to ignore his first 3 trips to the playoffs, fine.  But until he proves otherwise, I don't know how you can take issue with someone saying Allen is better in the playoffs.  Like, if someone said Mahomes was better than Justin Herbert in the playoffs, the response wouldn't be "well he's only played in 1 game, so we don't really know yet." 

We have to judge with the information we have.  And from what we have seen in the opportunities they have had, Allen has been on an entirely different tier than Lamar after the regular season.  After all, we both know this past season wasn't the first time the Lamar-led Ravens had a top-5 offense only to do jack squat in the playoffs.  The fingers always got pointed at Greg Roman (which I agreed with), but he wasn't around last year.   I still don't think Lamar is completely at fault, but he is the QB and under him they average 16 PPG in the playoffs.  You say 6 playoff games isn't a large sample size, we'll agree to disagree on that. Only 5 active QBs have 10+ playoff games, and 4 of them won Super Bowls (Flacco, Mahomes, Rodgers, Russ) - the 5th being Josh Allen.  Dak only has 7 and gets criticized for his postseason play... yet has been far better in his games than Lamar has been in his.  Lamar would play in more playoff games if he played better.

 

Edited August 15 by iknowcool

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

4 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

So we can't say Josh Allen is a better postseason performer because Lamar hasn't played in many of them the last 3 years?

If we are doing that, then Lamar's 1st MVP is irrelevant to the discussion as it too was a long time ago.  And that only strengthens Allen's argument and the gap between the two.

And I'm in no way trying to take away from Lamar's good game against Houston.  It WAS a very good game, but I'd also argue that it didn't really answer any questions about if he could get it done through the air in the postseason.  Only 2 times he's thrown for more than 200 yards in the playoffs, and both times he did it with 37+ pass attempts and a sub-55 CMP%.  If we want to ignore his first 3 trips to the playoffs, fine.  But until he proves otherwise, I don't know how you can take issue with someone saying Allen is better in the playoffs.  Like, if someone said Mahomes was better than Justin Herbert in the playoffs, the response wouldn't be "well he's only played in 1 game, so we don't really know yet." 

We have to judge with the information we have.  And from what we have seen in the opportunities they have had, Allen has been on an entirely different tier than Lamar after the regular season.  After all, we both know this past season wasn't the first time the Lamar-led Ravens had a top-5 offense only to do jack squat in the playoffs.  The fingers always got pointed at Greg Roman (which I agreed with), but he wasn't around last year.  

 

And yet the Ravens seemingly suffered the exact same game plan woes as they did with Greg Roman by refusing to run the ball and stay true to their identity. I'm still flabbergasted at the idea that they thought they could beat the #1 ranked pass defense with Zay Flowers and Nelson Agholor and not the 29th(?) ranked run defense because they seemingly didn't believe in Gus Edwards at RB when they believed in him all year.

[iknowcool]

2 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

And yet the Ravens seemingly suffered the exact same game plan woes as they did with Greg Roman by refusing to run the ball and stay true to their identity. I'm still flabbergasted at the idea that they thought they could beat the #1 ranked pass defense with Zay Flowers and Nelson Agholor and not the 29th(?) ranked run defense because they seemingly didn't believe in Gus Edwards at RB when they believed in him all year.

And I would agree with you that Lamar isn't completely at fault for the loss against Kansas City.  

But at the end of the day, he did have opportunities to win the game and he didn't capitalize.  Should Baltimore have ran the ball more?  100%, we agreed on that during the game.  But he's the QB.  Do you think anyone after an Allen postseason game thought, "they should have taken the ball out of his hands more"?  A better game from Jackson wins that game (well, gives them a better chance anyway - you never know with Mahomes).  

And to emphasize I don't want that to be construed as me putting it all on him.  He's a great QB, I just don't think he's as good as Josh Allen.  And I do think if you put Allen on that Ravens team, they have a better chance of winning that KC game.

[Jeezla]

Lamar should never be higher than a 91 overall (unless you convert him to RB), but Madden never factors how ugly Lamar is into their rating, which is an obvious flaw in their rating system.

I'm kidding, but seriously- Lamar's face is a -10 stat debuff, and EA continues to ignore this.

Edited August 15 by Jeezla

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

1 hour ago, iknowcool said:

And I would agree with you that Lamar isn't completely at fault for the loss against Kansas City.  

But at the end of the day, he did have opportunities to win the game and he didn't capitalize.  Should Baltimore have ran the ball more?  100%, we agreed on that during the game.  But he's the QB.  Do you think anyone after an Allen postseason game thought, "they should have taken the ball out of his hands more"?  A better game from Jackson wins that game (well, gives them a better chance anyway - you never know with Mahomes).  

And to emphasize I don't want that to be construed as me putting it all on him.  He's a great QB, I just don't think he's as good as Josh Allen.  And I do think if you put Allen on that Ravens team, they have a better chance of winning that KC game.

To your second paragraph - I know and that's what's so frustrating about Lamar in the playoffs is that it seems the Ravens as an organization put him in no-win situations or make his job as hard as possible, then he fails because DUH and then we look back on this and just say "oh yeah lamar sucks" when in reality it's much more complex.

With Lamar, it's so much more than just "running the ball" because he is their running game to an extent. He's not just a Tom Brady or guy where running the ball means you're not incorporating your QB. I mentioned Gus because the threat of lamar as a runner himself opens things up for our RB's, which in-and-of-itself is a testament to Lamar's value vs. other QB's.

I personally think Allen and Lamar are interchangeable at #2. They both do things the other can't do (JFA's deep ball accuracy and strength / post-season success vs. Lamar's running ability and MVP awards). Both have turnover issues and flaws, obviously. I think Lamar's coaching has really hurt him with regards to how people view him in the post season. Like, more than people realize.

[Soko]

1 hour ago, Soggust said:

I'm specifically saying Peyton was NOT a better playoff performer, but yet I would still have taken him over Brady to play a game against the Aliens to save humanity in 05, because I believe he was a better player overall. 

Likewise, a proven playoff guy in Flacco wasn't swaying me over who I believed to be a better player in Stroud, but maybe you don't consider their 2023's close enough for comparison and I think that's reasonable.

Then you’d have doomed the Earth, because Brady has been a better, more consistent playoff force than Manning. Using Brady/Peyton hurts your point more than helps it, I think. 

And yeah, the gap between Flacco/Stroud is pretty significant…

1 hour ago, Soggust said:

I am unsure how we can call them similar caliber if one guy is routinely outperforming the other, unless there are other factors at play, which is kinda what makes this whole debate moot.

I mean, we’ve already brought up Brady/Manning. For awhile, they were neck and neck with many leaning Peyton as the better overall QB (mostly due to regular season), but then the playoffs start and we see Brady consistently outperform Peyton. 

Similar caliber during the regular season - make more sense? 

1 hour ago, Soggust said:

Let me just make this clear for the record -

I think having Josh at #2 is fine. I don't agree, but it's certainly not out of line. I personally think he's #3.

But in my mind, it has a million times more to do with the bajillion TDs he's created over the last few years and less to do with the 13 second game, for example.

Sure, but it’s not just because of the 13 second game. It’s that Josh is usually himself in the postseason, which is a scary but reckless top QB, and Lamar hasn’t really been that. He just won MVP and didn’t really play like it. 

Again I ask you, why would we not split those postseason hairs if we can agree that they’re similarly good in the regular season?

1 hour ago, Soggust said:

I think the onus is on proving it's NOT another random game and that professional football players somehow run faster or jump higher or play harder or want it more when the playoffs are on the line vs random stuff just happening like it does every single week of the NFL season.

It's a harder schedule, sure, but I just don't believe playoff games are SO significantly different than a regular game that they deserve their own category and like 40% of the argument or whatever people give it, personally.

Yeah, I’m not really interested in engaging why sports isn’t just purely based in cosmic luck and instead revolves more (not completely, but mostly) around skill, performance, and preparation. We agree there are tons of variables, some the QB can control and many that they cannot, that go into any given postseason resume. But equating a player’s performance to a roulette wheel is just so far beyond what my understanding of sports is. And I’m not even talking QB wins, I’m talking QB performance. You brought up that 13 second game, Allen and the Bills lost that game but no one comes away thinking that Josh played poorly. 

I cannot point to one specific reason as to why any given QB might be generally more flat in the playoffs than others. For some guys it could be one thing, for some it’s another. For many, who freaking knows. I’m not out here saying “the pressure got to him!!!” like some talking heads. But…it happens. Not just in football, either. 

[Soko]

1 hour ago, Soggust said:

Oooooh just thought - maybe Purdy/Dak is the right example?

Presumably, you would confidently take Purdy over Dak in a playoff game tomorrow?

There's no ace up my sleeve or follow ups here - I think it's a fair position. 

I just think I would take Dak, even in a playoff game, over Purdy tomorrow pretty confidently, because he had a better 2023 imo (and it was close).

(as I said from the beginning, I know I have the minority perspective here)

I mean, Purdy’s played okay in his 3 games, wouldn’t really say he lit things up when he got there. Which is fine, but that’s how I’d sum up those games. Dak generally underperforms.

The hypotheticals matter less than the point and follow-up question. If two guys are we view as similarly good in the regular season/as a whole are playing against each other in a playoff game, why would I not be more confident against the guy who generally plays well in the postseason vs a guy who generally plays bad? 

[Ray Reed]

I think it’s an almost certainty that Josh Allen wins the AFC Championship last year with the Ravens defense holding the Chiefs to 17 points.

Lamar up to this point in his career has mostly stunk in the playoffs. His worst game of the season is almost always in a playoff game. I don’t think that’s arguable and anyone arguing otherwise probably isn’t looking at things objectively. 

The good news for Lamar and us Ravens fans is that he’s unbelievable in the regular season, so he should have a lot more opportunities in the foreseeable future to rewrite that narrative. 

Reg season Lamar is a top 5ish player in the NFL and plummets dramatically in the postseason. Allen typically plays out of his mind in the playoffs and is really really good during the reg season as well. I think most people you talk to would pick the latter QB, but again, 1 crazy playoff run by Lamar in the next year or two could flip that totally. Hes just got to do it at this point but we can’t assume he will until he does.

[wackywabbit]

2 hours ago, iknowcool said:

So we can't say Josh Allen is a better postseason performer because Lamar hasn't played in many of them the last 3 years?

If we are doing that, then Lamar's 1st MVP is irrelevant to the discussion as it too was a long time ago.  And that only strengthens Allen's argument and the gap between the two.

And I'm in no way trying to take away from Lamar's good game against Houston.  It WAS a very good game, but I'd also argue that it didn't really answer any questions about if he could get it done through the air in the postseason.  Only 2 times he's thrown for more than 200 yards in the playoffs, and both times he did it with 37+ pass attempts and a sub-55 CMP%.  If we want to ignore his first 3 trips to the playoffs, fine.  But until he proves otherwise, I don't know how you can take issue with someone saying Allen is better in the playoffs.  Like, if someone said Mahomes was better than Justin Herbert in the playoffs, the response wouldn't be "well he's only played in 1 game, so we don't really know yet." 

We have to judge with the information we have.  And from what we have seen in the opportunities they have had, Allen has been on an entirely different tier than Lamar after the regular season.  After all, we both know this past season wasn't the first time the Lamar-led Ravens had a top-5 offense only to do jack squat in the playoffs.  The fingers always got pointed at Greg Roman (which I agreed with), but he wasn't around last year.   I still don't think Lamar is completely at fault, but he is the QB and under him they average 16 PPG in the playoffs.  You say 6 playoff games isn't a large sample size, we'll agree to disagree on that. Only 5 active QBs have 10+ playoff games, and 4 of them won Super Bowls (Flacco, Mahomes, Rodgers, Russ) - the 5th being Josh Allen.  Dak only has 7 and gets criticized for his postseason play... yet has been far better in his games than Lamar has been in his.  Lamar would play in more playoff games if he played better.

 

No you can say Josh Allen is a better playoff performer based on the information we have. It's definitely true.

I'm just bringing up that the information we have includes only one bad playoff game from Lamar in the last 3 years. Which has to be factored into the how much weight this criteria has in evaluating who a player is today.