I have no idea why Wyoming ran pro style formation. Yes, it is an easy concept to grasp, but you for some reason are ignoring it. Good stats may or may not mean success. I accept it, and it is not against my belief. Bad stats (56% completion) though always means failure.
Stafford was at 60+ in his junior year. Allen is at 56 at his senior year, never broke 56.2. Will he break the mantra and be the first since Favre - it's been a long time? Maybe. I just don't want to bet 3d pick on this.
Stafford also played in a vastly superior football program w elite talent everywhere he looked. I’d venture to say him falling below 60% in his instance is a far greater red flag than Allen & I LOVED Stafford coming out
16 TDS to 6 ints .is that a bad stat?? Back to back bowl appearances for a team that likely wins 2 games w.o him?First back to back bowl appearances since 87-88. None of this matters?Onmy completion % when the surrounding cast sucked?? Cmon man.Youre entitled to your opinion but quit while you still have your pride
My pride? Don't be ridiculous - you've been completely illogical all this time arguing against something I didn't even say (no one said good college stats means success) then pointed to a guy who graduated 28 years ago as the only person you could find who beat the odds. You must be out of your mind bringing up 16 TD and 6 ints to show that it is some great accomplishment. Is it bad by College standards - no. But we are talking about the best QBs for the draft, and his stats you must admit are quite poor in comparison to other top QBs. Now, I am making a logical argument, adjusting stats for NFL throws, drops, under pressure #s, 20 yards down the field, and everywhere I look - it is Mayfield and Rosen that come out on top. You can't teach accuracy, that is why 56% is extremely alarming. And this is why even though you won't admit it, there is a good reason why QBs with poor % in College do not end up good NFL players. And even when you factor in adjusted stats (like poor WRs who drop the ball, etc, NFL throws etc) Allen is still low. Can he beat the odds? Maybe. I would hate for the Jets to be the ones to bet against these enormous odds though.
It's the system they run. and the recruited a QB who could run it. they just lacked on getting other good players the problem is, you took a random number. you can easily say 55% (a more round number) or less is pretty much always a failure, but over 56% could mean sucess. see how stats work? If Allen goes on to make a pro bowl, in future years people will use him as an example of someone who threw 56% and was successful. That's why you can't look at numbers like that. Here is a better way to look at the variables. make a list of every QB drafted in the 1st round over the past 10 years or so. take away every QB who didn't run a pro offense in college Take away every QB who threw over 56% Take away every QB who had a decent team around him in college. Now how many are left? that would be your sample size to compare allen to. I haven't done the numbers myself but i'd be willing to bet anything that the sample size is way to small to judge and i'd be surprised if there was even 1 QB to compare him to.
Illogical??in what wAy is my argument illogical?its only illogical if you are fixated on “bad STAT” notice the singular pretense.1 stat that you equate w accuracy but it’s simply not true.Completion% dies not equate ball placement.You are wrong & I find it insulting that you’d compute the plethora of legitimate rationale I’ve provided as illogical when you simply fixate on one convienient truth that has significant flaws
Perfect example as a jet fan. Mccown was a career barely 60% passer in a 15 year career in the NFL. he's not a great QB by any means but he's also been in a shitty situation most of his career. his win% is 31.5. 1.24 TD to INT ratio he comes to the jets, has a decent team around him and an offensive system to help him and build around his flaws. his completions go up to 67.3% win% 38.5 and 2.0 TD to INT ratio his completion percentage went up 7%, whis TD to INT ration went up .7 and his win% went up 7%. he didn't all of a sudden get more accurate after 15 years in the NFL and he didn't get any better either at the age of 38 well past his prime. but his stats went up a lot. it's the difference of coaching and talent around you can make
that's what people don't seem to understand. You draft/sign a player based on what they can do for you in the future, not based on what they did in the past.
People don’t like projections or risk & for some odd reason it’s no more apparent than at QB.they continue to think that a 1st round QB must be a sure thing despite the fact that there IS no such thing.Rather than accept the harsh reality & science of future projection they’d rather hide behind objective stats for a false sense of assurance & certainty. It’s simply put an extremely flawed approach & is nothing more than a dressed up version of box score scouting.
pretty much. I've yet to see many pro arguments for mayfield that don't include his stats or "it" factor
Michael Vick's college career completion percentage was exactly 56%. Matt Hasselbeck's was 55.6% Mark Brunell's was 52%.
I know that I have pointed out his ability to use his eyes as good as anyone in the draft. He looks defenders off and is able to get through multiple reads on a given play. Set the stats aside, he has very good accuracy. This isn’t debatable. He hits his receivers whether they are wide open or in tight windows. He can make all the throws necessary. The same can not be said for Allen. His innacuracy goes beyond the stats. I’ve watched game tape of him aside from Highlight reels and he has some god awful passes. He will have a great deep out route pass on one play and then miss wildly on the next. He is inconsistent without question. Overall, I’m tired of this debate. You don’t have to like Mayfield as much as me. I won’t sweat over it.
Joe Montana had a 52% completion percentage in College. 63.2% in his NFL career including 1 year at 70.2%. Brett Favre had a 52.4% completion percentage in College. 62% in his NFL career including 1 year at 68.4% Disclaimer: Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.
This is a flawed analogy. You sign a player based on what he did in the past and you hope he continues with you. What else would you go by? If the player was bad I don't think you would want to sign him.
if they truly were bad, you wouldn't be considering them. You watch the film on their talent not look at stats. that's why scouts are watching game film all the time and it's also why you have the combine and pro-days. there isn't a single player in the draft that has "done anything in the past" on the NFL level. it's the nature of sports. look at a guy like peterson. was the best RB in the NFL for like 6-7 years. The saints signed him and he lost reps to a 3rd round rookie and they traded him away to the cardinals where he'll back-up david johnson and was mostly ineffective. You wouldn't pay peterson based on what he did in the past, you'd pay him knowing what he would be in the future for you which is very little.
I actually think you proved my point. They did sign him based on his past production but he did not produce for them. Possibly on the decline of his career. If he was one of the worst RBs in the past they wouldn't have signed him.
his past production would have meant 8-10+ mil a year. he got paid 3.5mil a season. Which isn't even starting RB money and he was signed to back-up ingram. if they paid him based on the past, he would have been the starter making 8-10+mil a year but everyone knew he was on the decline and hence there wans't any market for him to start at RB. Meanwhile a RB like mckinnon who was mostly a back-up RB who split time, was signed to start for the niners at 7.5mil a year based on what he will do for them in 2018 and beyond. If you paid a player on their past production peterson would have got more then mckinnon. also again every player in the draft has 0 production in the NFL
You're not making a logical argument. You're trying to use a statistical argument about guys who play against vastly different levels of competition. They have vastly different skill players at their disposal. They are playing in different systems. They are playing for teams that have excellent coaching and training vs. teams that don't. You are trying to use analytics to even the playing field. The playing field can't be evened. Conditions can't be replicated. Coaching isn't the same, training isn't the same, practice isn't the same. You're using a skewed set of numbers and your applying them to young men who may well be at vastly different levels of physical and mental maturity which in a year or two could change dramatically. That's why there is a combine and testing and interviews. That's why the great talent evaluators have to project. FYI there are plenty of examples of great NFL QB's, even HOF QB's who busted out from the team that drafted them because they weren't mentally or physical mature enough to take on being a Franchise QB.
