Watch this - QB Josh Allen

[Philc1]

1 hour ago, HessStation said:

Here's the thing on Allen, if he was playing for Oregon would his comp % be 56... prob not

No he sucked everytime in college he played a legit program and not Cheyenne Community College

[HessStation]

7 minutes ago, Philc1 said:

No he sucked everytime in college he played a legit program and not Cheyenne Community College

..I watched some of the Iowa game and Oregon on YouTube. The OL was destroyed. Even vs Boise State he was under constant pressure. Plus scheme etc. Just saying 

[NoBowles]

2 hours ago, JiF said:

It's not the end all be all.  It's a starting point and a red flag.  You see a college player who cant complete more than 56% of his passes and it's a concern.  From there, you say, whoa his stats are god awful too. So then you look at his game log and you're like, yikes!!!  This dude has 3 games where he completed less than 45 all the way down to 38 with some turnovers sprinkled in and the red flag all of sudden looks like a blimp.

So then you actually look at his play and its embarrassing some of the throws he misses (Mogglez posted some of the misses) and then he sprinkles in legit wow moments.  And you're dismissing the one completion (though it wouldnt help him most games) but what if that one completion is the game changer/winner?  It's an indicator and its very reasonable to assume that someone who doesnt do something well in college is going to have a much harder time when everything is more difficult and the competition is a worlds apart. 

The 60% isnt the end all be all, it's a starting point but often the ending point.  Only 2 players have  had "success" at the next level who cant complete 60% in college, Stafford (debatable success) and Ryan who was a pubic hair under at 59.9.  When there is a historical trend (similar to the pass rusher work out metrics) that are rock solid, you should probably avoid that type of investment...that should make sense to someone who does this for a living.

 

See, this I agree with. BUT, this is not what is being represented here. What is being presented here is that it is the absolute end all be all. 

I do think its a starting point and a red flag, but I think when there is talent there, it needs to be looked at deeper than just chalking it up to he sucks and always will suck, his mom sucks, his dad sucks, he has a small wee wee, his kids will suck, his kids kids will suck..........

The reality is that in this day and age, its harder than ever to project a college QB to the NFL. The spread offenses make it extremely difficult, as does the style of play of a lot of college QB's. 

I also wholeheartedly agree with Scott who said, for us to believe that CP is THE key statistic, we would have to  have proof that the QB's with the highest college CP have the highest chance of making the best NFL QB's. Go ahead and look at the top 20 college CP over the last 20 years and see if that is true.

There are a ton of factors that go into CP, QB accuracy is most important factor sure, but system, line, receivers, opponents, coaches, all play into it as well. When we start making definitive statements based on less than 1 reception per game, we absolutely ignore the potential influence of the other factors. 

And I am still waiting for @dbatesman to tell me if the denominator is top or bottom! He is such a cock tease that one.

[Philc1]

2 minutes ago, HessStation said:

..I watched some of the Iowa game and Oregon on YouTube. The OL was destroyed. Even vs Boise State he was under constant pressure. Plus scheme etc. Just saying 

People made the same excuses for Hack 2 years ago

 

 

Allen is going to be a workout warrior

[flgreen]

25 minutes ago, prime21 said:

Well if they are 100 percent sold one of the QB's then they have to.  But if they are split or their rankings are close then they should take the RB (if they want him)

With #1 and #4, it is very conceivable that the Browns could do both

[SenorGato]

2 hours ago, HessStation said:

Here's the thing on Allen, if he was playing for Oregon would his comp % be 56... prob not

Wtf 

Put down the crack pipe Hess. 

[Jets Voice of Reason]

Always a question of risk reward. He has about two seasons worth of starts. So not a ton probably about average. He has sub sixty completion for two seasons. So again red flag. 

The guy's biggest carrying tools are his big arm and size, so to best use him you need fast receivers and an OL that can give you time. Things we don't currently have in place and honesty are difficult to find and put in place at one time. This again also doesn't go with the general nfl trend of quicker throws and quicker releases. 

Not an expert, but my opinion on him is that he seems inconsistent on his mechanics and on a lot of throws it's clear he's using just his arm and not the his lower half. To me he just seems like a bigger Manziel strictly on the field with the roll outs. 

Not going to say he's a bust, because what do i know about the future, but i think 6 is insanely risky for him and honestly think in actual value he's more a 2nd-3rd rounder. 

[legler82]

 

[dbatesman]

46 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

I also wholeheartedly agree with Scott who said, for us to believe that CP is THE key statistic, we would have to  have proof that the QB's with the highest college CP have the highest chance of making the best NFL QB's. Go ahead and look at the top 20 college CP over the last 20 years and see if that is true.

Good for you and Scott, because you're completely misapprehending how this works. There's no positive correlation between a good completion percentage and QB quality, but there's a strong negative correlation between poor completion percentage and QB quality. All it tells you is which guys are likely to suck. That's it. And 60% isn't magic or anything; it's just a nice round number that roughly approximates the bare minimum standard for competency in the NFL. If a guy can't hit that in college, I'm not interested. You can dial the threshold down to 58 or 56 or 50 (or up into the 60s) if you like, and you can thin-slice sh*t like coaching and receivers and basically give the kid the weapinzz treatment before we even draft him. In any event, the evidence suggests pretty definitively that guys who don't complete a lot of passes very rarely hack it in the league.

Figuring out who's going to be good is obviously a lot harder and involves analysis of a billion other factors, both quantitative and qualitative, which is exactly why scouting departments and film study and site visits and Combine interviews exist. But given the fact that most drafted QBs turn into nothing, it's absolutely an edge to have a solid handle on the denominator (that's the bottom one, btw).

[HessStation]

53 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

Wtf 

Put down the crack pipe Hess. 

Dude relax I don't want Allen.

 

[NoBowles]

5 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Good for you and Scott, because you're completely misapprehending how this works. There's no positive correlation between a good completion percentage and QB quality, but there's a strong negative correlation between poor completion percentage and QB quality. All it tells you is which guys are likely to suck. That's it. And 60% isn't magic or anything; it's just a nice round number that roughly approximates the bare minimum standard for competency in the NFL. If a guy can't hit that in college, I'm not interested. You can dial the threshold down to 58 or 56 or 50 (or up into the 60s) if you like, and you can thin-slice sh*t like coaching and receivers and basically give the kid the weapinzz treatment before we even draft him. In any event, the evidence suggests pretty definitively that guys who don't complete a lot of passes very rarely hack it in the league.

Figuring out who's going to be good is obviously a lot harder and involves analysis of a billion other factors, both quantitative and qualitative, which is exactly why scouting departments and film study and site visits and Combine interviews exist. But given the fact that most drafted QBs turn into nothing, it's absolutely an edge to have a solid handle on the denominator (that's the bottom one, btw).

This is awesome, so now we are getting somewhere!

1) There is nothing magical about 60.

2) And the denominator is on the bottom.

Just out of curiosity, are there any correlations (positive or negative) between birth day of month and QB quality?

[SenorGato]

3 minutes ago, HessStation said:

Dude relax I don't want Allen.

Oh OK that’s what I was going after there 

[HessStation]

6 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

Oh OK that’s what I was going after there 

...he's my least favorite of the top qbs 

just not losing my sh*t if they take him at 6 until I can watch him develop 

 

[dbatesman]

15 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

This is awesome, so now we are getting somewhere!

1) There is nothing magical about 60.

2) And the denominator is on the bottom.

Just out of curiosity, are there any correlations (positive or negative) between birth day of month and QB quality?

TFW you do statistics for a living

[SenorGato]

15 minutes ago, HessStation said:

...he's my least favorite of the top qbs 

just not losing my sh*t if they take him at 6 until I can watch him develop 

No yeah totally I get it, you ‘re fully covered from all angles there. He might develop because if he went to a different program...I get it, don’t worry. I’ve never tried crack myself but it’s popular for a reason, right? 

 

[Sperm Edwards]

18 hours ago, nycdan said:

Disagree.  We effectively have no QBs on the roster right now.  Even if we sign Cousins (which I think is a good option), we should draft one that we think can become a good enough backup and maybe have a shot to be more.  That feels like a round 3 or 4 pick to me.  The good thing is, there are a lot of QBs in this draft that might be worthy of that sort of pick.  Somewhere between Falk, Stidham, Ferguson, Rudolph, White, and maybe a few others, there will be guys available at the top of rounds 3 and 4 who are worth the risk.  It's not just about Brady, but guys like Romo, Warner and many others who exceeded expectations and became very good or even great QBs.  Gotta keep taking smart shots at it.

 

+1

Imagine the odds that Philadelphia would be in the SB after Wentz went down late, if all they had behind him was Petty & Hackenberg.

[HessStation]

5 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

No yeah totally I get it, you ‘re fully covered from all angles there. He might develop because if he went to a different program...I get it, don’t worry. I’ve never tried crack myself but it’s popular for a reason, right? 

 

I've smoked crack twice before. It really wasn't that big of a deal imo.

[Jets Voice of Reason]

19 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

TFW you do statistics for a living

Bet you get that correlation/causation joke a lot from people trying to show that they know one fact about stats. Not that statistical relevance is pertinent to the above discussion or anything. 

[JustInFudge]

2 hours ago, NoBowles said:

See, this I agree with. BUT, this is not what is being represented here. What is being presented here is that it is the absolute end all be all. 

I do think its a starting point and a red flag, but I think when there is talent there, it needs to be looked at deeper than just chalking it up to he sucks and always will suck, his mom sucks, his dad sucks, he has a small wee wee, his kids will suck, his kids kids will suck..........

The reality is that in this day and age, its harder than ever to project a college QB to the NFL. The spread offenses make it extremely difficult, as does the style of play of a lot of college QB's. 

I also wholeheartedly agree with Scott who said, for us to believe that CP is THE key statistic, we would have to  have proof that the QB's with the highest college CP have the highest chance of making the best NFL QB's. Go ahead and look at the top 20 college CP over the last 20 years and see if that is true.

There are a ton of factors that go into CP, QB accuracy is most important factor sure, but system, line, receivers, opponents, coaches, all play into it as well. When we start making definitive statements based on less than 1 reception per game, we absolutely ignore the potential influence of the other factors. 

And I am still waiting for @dbatesman to tell me if the denominator is top or bottom! He is such a cock tease that one.

Absolutely, ton of factors. It just so happens, this particular stat is almost like a death pill when you look at this historical data.  You can excuse it away for a 100 different reasons but the fact remains, guys who cant complete passes in college, have a hard time completing passes in pros. 

The bold?  It's irrelevant because there isnt a historical trend to point to like there is with the below 60% mark.  Probably because you dont just get magically better when everything is harder but if you're good, you could regress because everything is harder. 

Ignoring accuracy issues because of the tools and potential lead you to, Jake Locker in the 1st round or Joey Harrington or Kyle Boller etc.  or Christian Hackenberg in the 2nd

It's the hardest thing to overcome. Guys overcome having to take snaps under center for the first time or coming from a gimmicky system or even turnovers for that matter....throwing the ball accurately?  That's one that doesnt get better at the next level because again, everything is harder. 

 

 

 

 

[Paradis]

Based on the comments it didn't come across to me like they watched any of his games and broke down his play, his OL's Play, his Wr's play... Just picked on a stat.  A stat which was highly affected by all of those factors in my opinion. 
I think I have a little wisdom to share as well..   That's the beauty of forums like this.  We give our thoughts and opinions and we can agree or disagree and go back and forth on subjects like this..   Wait 2-4 years and then see who is right... LOL!!

I’m gonna put some egg on your face then...

Your argument; “guys, his accuracy is a functional of how bad his supporting cast was last year. He lost all those good players...”

Truth bomb; His accuracy was literally the same the year before WITH all these cast members that left for the NFL.

His accuracy has always been a problem. Maybe... just maybe, those supporting cast members carried him, in 2016. No matter how you slice it, drafting Allen means you’re assuming you can fix or work with that... for my dollar, I’ll take Jackson if I’m getting saddled to a project like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HessStation]

11 minutes ago, Paradis said:

 

I’m gonna put some egg on your face then...

Your argument; “guys, his accuracy is a functional of how bad his supporting cast was last year. He lost all those good players...”

Truth bomb; His accuracy was literally the same the year before WITH all these cast members that left for the NFL.

His accuracy has always been a problem. Maybe... just maybe, those supporting cast members carried him, in 2016. No matter how you slice it, drafting Allen means you’re assuming you can fix or work with that... for my dollar, I’ll take Jackson if I’m getting saddled to a project like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Me too. I don't think Jackson gets enough credit for his arm. I've seen a lot more of Jackson but I didn't really see as much of the accuracy concerns contrary to his stats either. Plus he's just more dynamic imo

[bla bla bla]

6 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Meh.  If someone else likes Jackson enough to take him before we can at 37, more power to them.  We don't HAVE to come out of the 1st two rounds with a QB.  If we take a QB, it needs to be the right one.  This regime has already d*cked around and taken Petty and Hack.  I'd rather them take no QB and give that task to the next regime instead of rushing in to take Allen just cuz. 

Yea I mean if they like more than the top 5 then maybe you roll the dice, I just want them to get their guy. 

[Jetsfan80]

56 minutes ago, HessStation said:

Me too. I don't think Jackson gets enough credit for his arm. I've seen a lot more of Jackson but I didn't really see as much of the accuracy concerns contrary to his stats either. Plus he's just more dynamic imo

He'd be fun for a season or 2 till his knees get ripped up, and/or moves to WR.  Well worth a 2nd rounder if we can't get someone good in the 1st.   

[ZachEY]

6 hours ago, JiF said:

It's not the end all be all.  It's a starting point and a red flag.  You see a college player who cant complete more than 56% of his passes and it's a concern.  From there, you say, whoa his stats are god awful too. So then you look at his game log and you're like, yikes!!!  This dude has 3 games where he completed less than 45 all the way down to 38 with some turnovers sprinkled in and the red flag all of sudden looks like a blimp.

So then you actually look at his play and its embarrassing some of the throws he misses (Mogglez posted some of the misses) and then he sprinkles in legit wow moments.  And you're dismissing the one completion (though it wouldnt help him most games) but what if that one completion is the game changer/winner?  It's an indicator and its very reasonable to assume that someone who doesnt do something well in college is going to have a much harder time when everything is more difficult and the competition is a worlds apart. 

The 60% isnt the end all be all, it's a starting point but often the ending point.  Only 2 players have  had "success" at the next level who cant complete 60% in college, Stafford (debatable success) and Ryan who was a pubic hair under at 59.9.  When there is a historical trend (similar to the pass rusher work out metrics) that are rock solid, you should probably avoid that type of investment...that should make sense to someone who does this for a living.

 

Re: Matt Ryan, it's also worth noting that his completion % is only under 60% because he went 35/71 in his freshman year.

Re: Stafford, he's the best modern example, and at the very least, you can look at the grey area because he got better each year, and his senior year was over the mark.

[ZachEY]

3 hours ago, NoBowles said:

I also wholeheartedly agree with Scott who said, for us to believe that CP is THE key statistic, we would have to  have proof that the QB's with the highest college CP have the highest chance of making the best NFL QB's. Go ahead and look at the top 20 college CP over the last 20 years and see if that is true.

There are plenty of numbers that only work in one direction.  I don't have data on this, but for argument's sake, I wouldn't take an offensive lineman who could only do 10 reps, but that doesn't mean the guy who can do 40 will be better than the guy who can do 35.  I wouldn't take a CB or WR who runs a 5.5 40, but that doesn't mean the fastest CB or WR is the best either.  It means that predictive success within the data doesn't exist purely on a ratio scale, but that there is at least one strong benchmark.

Your argument about birthdays is nonsensical, as birthday isn't a relevant QB skill, but ability to complete passes is.

[RutgersJetFan]

This thread is like when Kramer tried to explain what a write-off is to Jerry.

[HessStation]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

He'd be fun for a season or 2 till his knees get ripped up, and/or moves to WR.  Well worth a 2nd rounder if we can't get someone good in the 1st.   

I just think it's way too early to figure where guys go. Some will drop and some will climb. I still like Luke Falk btw. I like a QB at 6. If somebody drops bc of newly developed red flags that could scare me off a bit. But as of now I just want a QB. Yeah, if not at 6 you hope they can get lucky in the second or some kind of trade. 

Im just at the point with this team...QB or gtfo

[Mogglez]

*Crickets*

[NoBowles]

2 hours ago, gEYno said:

There are plenty of numbers that only work in one direction.  I don't have data on this, but for argument's sake, I wouldn't take an offensive lineman who could only do 10 reps, but that doesn't mean the guy who can do 40 will be better than the guy who can do 35.  I wouldn't take a CB or WR who runs a 5.5 40, but that doesn't mean the fastest CB or WR is the best either.  It means that predictive success within the data doesn't exist purely on a ratio scale, but that there is at least one strong benchmark.

Your argument about birthdays is nonsensical, as birthday isn't a relevant QB skill, but ability to complete passes is.

 

Sure, there are plenty of stats that work in one direction....

And I know I am the village dolt here, but do you really think bench press for a lineman and 40 speed for a WR are the right analogy to completion percentage for a QB? I know I don't have a clue about dependent, or independent variables, or their impact on correlation, but it would seem to me that those measures are independent variables that are really only a measure of the individual player, much like say MPH for a QB, while a QB's CP would have a heck of a lot of dependent variables built in.

So your going to ruin my Tuesday and tell me the model I have been working on all damn day about birth day of month and QB success is not going to have high predictive power? Crap!

[NoBowles]

2 hours ago, RutgersJetFan said:

This thread is like when Kramer tried to explain what a write-off is to Jerry.

We know who likes the bottom! Heynow!

[Joejet]

10 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

Again.  1982.  Not relevant. 

Jeezus.  How about we pull up Joe Namath's numbers at Alabama and stuff? 

And shame on you @HessStation for positive repping that post. 

So when you say no quarterback EVER, ever doesn’t mean ever it only encompasses the timeframe that you determine qualifies, got it!

[BigO]

6 hours ago, Philc1 said:

No he sucked everytime in college he played a legit program and not Cheyenne Community College

Who gives a hoot. Kid has skillz.  He’s a big risk, true. But he’ll be the next Bert Jones or a bust like .....?  Bottom line, he’s going top 15 and if he falls that far, Cards will scoop him up. 

[Mogglez]

Can't stress enough how not the same Hack and Allen are guys.

[BigO]

5 hours ago, HessStation said:

Dude relax I don't want Allen.

 

Must be that time of the month. Cats can get pretty squirly when in heat. Meeeoooow.

[SMC]

A Jets QB competition between Allen and Hack would be freakin' awesome.

Who'd have more receptions?  WRs?  DBs?  Coaches on the sideline?