They underestimated it for good reason. He has improved his accuracy more than any QB ever. This is a guy who completed less than 60% of his passes each of his first 2 seasons. You're using an outlier to try to prove a rule. Don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back big guy. Process means more than outcome. The process behind thinking Allen would be inaccurate was rooted in solid evidence. You got lucky, congrats.
Alot of things.. - Being new to the game - Still needing work mechanically yet still demonstrating playmaking ability -Still needing work mentally but demonstrating playmaking ability - Frame to add weight - Not yet developed physically IE “Babies” - Held back by college scheme/surrounding cast - Strong leadership/intangibles -optimal Scheme fit In wilson’s case im looking at his ceiling. Yes being a finished product is a good thing but not when you’re picking #2 overall & the guy doesnt have the current skillset to justify such a pick.
Sure those are all great things but I’m still fully happy picking against Allen types every time and being right 99% of the time.
I don't think Lawrence will last to the 23 pick. Texans might take him #1 overall. (see what I did there?)
Lol what a dumb comment. I never said that. I said I’ll continue to go against guys like Allen who are all about projection and not what he actually did on the field. I actually seem to remember JD saying something about that as his strategy as well. It’s just so hard to project improvement although I guess you’re great at it and should be the GM. Same thing w DK Metcalf. Didn’t like him coming out either and was dead wrong and I’m ok w that. Im right about a lot as well.
Well...i look at it this way..maybe hes not a horrible person & is actually well liked..but perhaps safe to assume nlt the greatest leader?? Been alot of guys w similar pre draft comments.Rosen,Manziel,GENO,Leaf..the only one who overcame it was Rodgers & he doea rub some people the wrong way
You'd be right 1 time out of 100 predicting that a prospect like Allen would become significantly more accurate in the NFL. As it is, he's had 1 accurate season and 2 inaccurate seasons. But yeah, don't let that stop you from proclaiming yourself a great scout. He's saying you may have been right in this instance (again, 2 inaccurate seasons and 1 accurate one so I don't even know about that) but projecting a prospect like Allen to improve as much as he did would lead to you being wrong the vast majority of the time.
I wonder what percentage of a GM's decision is based on this stuff, eye test at pro days, or what other ppl write about the prospect. Probably depends on how much a GM trusts his own analysis of a player? If a GM's answer is "That's what I have scouts for", then he's probably not a very good GM. Oh, and I agree with you on Zack.
There is no magic formula, there wouldn’t be this many busts at QB and even other positions. Some players that are considered high upside but high bust potential get there and some don’t...while lower ceiling, but safe players never amount to anything at all I usually like players with high upside as far as physical skills, but it’s usually just about feel based off of their gametape. How will they translate to the NFL, and do they look like a potential star?
You’re not gonna downplay my & others conviction simply bc it doesnt coincide w your process. It was literally done IN THE FACE of preeposterous naysaying which was completely off base which was called out as such at the time. I was adamant about him based on many factors..it was the farthest thing from luck. So sorry that #s lie & college isnt the pros.
It's a mix, there are guys like Maccagnan that basically took Mel Kiper's big board as gospel and then guys like John Dorsey who almost completely ignore the noise. That's fine, you got one right, maybe. I'll continue to trust a good process to give me the best results most of the time and not pull my bicep jerking myself off when I get lucky and get a good outcome despite a bad process.
So you think Allen's chances of succeeding were 1 out of 100? Maybe it's time to rethink that evaluation process.
