Kyle Allen Only Struggles Because of the OL

[kungfoodude]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Would our run stats look equally good if someone like Cameron Artis-Payne was running behind them instead of Christian McCaffrey?

How many times have you seen PFF say something goofy like Matt Paradis or even Matt Kalil had our best line performance?

Stats just aren't as authoritative as people want to make them, especially not in football.

See, now you are confusing statistics with grading. PFF GRADES players based on, you guessed it, HUMAN INTERPRETATION of the plays. So, if you say the human element is king, PFF should be your source.

And it's easy to say that CMC makes the OL look better, but couldn't you easily use that argument on Kyle Allen? Aren't some of his sacks, INT's and fumbles on him but make the OL look worse? That argument works both ways. We can't sit here and claim that he consistently moves in the pocket well to avoid pressure because he doesn't. We can't sit here and say that sometimes he doesn't hold on to the ball too long and create fumbles and sacks, because he does. 

It's a symbiotic relationship. Bad QB play can impact the OL, just like bad OL play can impact the QB. Ditto with RB.

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, kungfoodude said:

See, now you are confusing statistics with grading. PFF GRADES players based on, you guessed it, HUMAN INTERPRETATION of the plays. So, if you say the human element is king, PFF should be your source.

And it's easy to say that CMC makes the OL look better, but couldn't you easily use that argument on Kyle Allen? Aren't some of his sacks, INT's and fumbles on him but make the OL look worse? That argument works both ways. We can't sit here and claim that he consistently moves in the pocket well to avoid pressure because he doesn't. We can't sit here and say that sometimes he doesn't hold on to the ball too long and create fumbles and sacks, because he does. 

It's a symbiotic relationship. Bad QB play can impact the OL, just like bad OL play can impact the QB. Ditto with RB.

It is a symbiotic relationship, which is why stat judgments are faulty.

Yes, Allen has done things that make the line look worse. Likewise, they've done things that make him look worse. The end result is that both are bad.

As has been discussed before, Rivera put this line together knowing that a mobile quarterback could mask a lot of their faults. But now we don't have a mobile quarterback and they're being exposed for how bad they really are.

[kungfoodude]

7 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Honestly, this is the first bad game he’s had with no pressure. I said it multiple times and it’s been clear as well that he’s feeling pressure that isn’t there now.

I know you like stats so I’ll post it again. Before today here’s his career splits:

3 or fewer sacks

6-1 2 INTs (the one loss was at GB)

5 or more sacks

0-4 10 INTs

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that high pressure games caused him to throw INTs. Today’s game was his worst game with little pressure. That said, maybe the 13-0 deficit made him think he had to do more or the beatings he had been taking have scarred him.

He was sacked once yesterday and threw 3 INT's, so I believe you made an error or used a source that was not up to date.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AlleKy00.htm

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, stbugs said:

51 sacks in 14 games is atrocious. We are right up there with Miami for worst pass blocking and they gave away Pouncey and Tunsil. We signed an expensive C and use 3 picks on 2 tackles. We invested to get the same performance as a team that dismantled their OL to tank. 60 sacks is historically bad and before yesterday we were at a pace for 62.

This is absolutely the worst pass blocking unit we’ve ever had. We’ve already given up 8 more sacks than Cam’s career high and team's are game planning for CMC only.

Allen sucks and may never amount to anything, but let’s not act like this is some sort of a good OL that Allen is making worse. He’s bad and they are bad. Not mutually exclusive. 

Pretty much.

[WarPanthers89]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

It's two games.

If two bad games are enough to wreck his NFL career, he doesn't belong.

I’m not saying it will wreck his career, but if they don’t think he is ready yet what is the point of putting him out on the field? To make posters on the huddle happy? The season is over folks. He was drafted in the third round to be our long term backup...if he was a 1st round pick who could be a long term starter for us I understand, but we gain nothing by putting him on the field this season. The coaches obviously want him to have a red shirt year. 
 

Side thought: Imagine he comes in and plays good enough to win both games and the Huddle explodes because we lost draft position because we wanted to see what Grier had. The season is over and people are going to complain about anything until the last game is over. 

[MHS831]

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

If you are grading him on purely PASSING statistics, sure. But he is one of the best rushing QB's in NFL history, so if you ignore that impact you are simply ignoring what he does as a player. THAT is cherry picking statistics. 

The OL line stats aren't cherry picked. They are what they are. I can add in rushing stats to get a bigger picture, if you'd like but I have bad news for you....they are going to look a LOT better as a unit after that happens. 

You almost need a separate category for the Newtons, Vicks, and now Jackson's of the league.  However, if you do that, you have to consider the fact that running QBs have a shorter shelf life--they lose their legs and the threat to run early, and then they are left with being a passing qb.  RBs tend to hit the wall at 28; Cam will be 31 and gets hit nearly as often.  You use the word "history" to describe the present (verb tense).  The last full season Cam was effective as a QB--he was.....28.

I know he is a freakish athlete and he was injured (as RBs are as they age), but Cam is an unknown quantity. If you use history to gauge future peformance, then you have to skip the last year and a half  Enter Tepper, a Hedge fund investor, and I am not sure that he is wired to invest in an unknown commodity with such a poor recent performance history.   So yes, Cam is his own category, and that is not necessarily a good thing if looking forward and not backward.

[kungfoodude]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

It is a symbiotic relationship, which is why stat judgments are faulty.

Yes, Allen has done things that make the line look worse. Likewise, they've done things that make him look worse. The end result is that both are bad.

As has been discussed before, Rivera put this line together knowing that a mobile quarterback could mask a lot of their faults. But now we don't have a mobile quarterback and they're being exposed for how bad they really are.

Stat judgements are not inherently faulty. The failing of statistical interpretation is almost always human. Numbers are numbers. Can you use them to make a point by being selective or ignoring other factors? Sure. But literally taking statistics like sacks(with league ranking), sack rates(with league ranking), adjusted sack rates, QB Hits, QB pressures, etc and putting them out to specifically isolate pass protection, that is pretty cut and dried. It's how these units performed over 16 regular games and that should give a pretty damn good idea of how they played and a very good idea of how they matched up historically.

So, no, at the moment, this is not the worst pass protection unit in Panthers history. Not by those measures, anyway. I'll revisit this at the end of the season and we can get greater detail on exactly how bad they were but right now they aren't the worst. 

And, the only reason I harp on this is because people get into the habit of using hyperbole too much. Everything isn't always "the greatest ever" or "the worst ever." 

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, stbugs said:

SMH. I said before this game. This was his first bad INT game with 3 or fewer sacks. He had been 6-1 with 2 total INTs when sacked 3 or fewer times BEFORE Seattle. Feel free to look at your link and you’ll see my stats are correct. 

Yeah but why would you not include that game? That's essentially cherry picking.

[kungfoodude]

7 minutes ago, stbugs said:

51 sacks in 14 games is atrocious. We are right up there with Miami for worst pass blocking and they gave away Pouncey and Tunsil. We signed an expensive C and use 3 picks on 2 tackles. We invested to get the same performance as a team that dismantled their OL to tank. 60 sacks is historically bad and before yesterday we were at a pace for 62.

This is absolutely the worst pass blocking unit we’ve ever had. We’ve already given up 8 more sacks than Cam’s career high and team's are game planning for CMC only.

Allen sucks and may never amount to anything, but let’s not act like this is some sort of a good OL that Allen is making worse. He’s bad and they are bad. Not mutually exclusive. 

Yeah well we gave up 68 sacks in 2000, so you might want to actually go back and check your Panthers history.

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, WarPanthers89 said:

I’m not saying it will wreck his career, but if they don’t think he is ready yet what is the point of putting him out on the field? To make posters on the huddle happy? The season is over folks. He was drafted in the third round to be our long term backup...if he was a 1st round pick who could be a long term starter for us I understand, but we gain nothing by putting him on the field this season. The coaches obviously want him to have a red shirt year. 
 

Side thought: Imagine he comes in and plays good enough to win both games and the Huddle explodes because we lost draft position because we wanted to see what Grier had. The season is over and people are going to complain about anything until the last game is over. 

I've seen a lot of people ask the question "What benefit is there to putting Will Grier out on the field?"

My return question would be what benefit is there to putting Kyle Allen out on the field for two more games?

I'm probably one of the biggest advocates of "wait and see" you could find. But I've waited, and I've seen.

Now I'd like to see something else.

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Stat judgements are not inherently faulty. The failing of statistical interpretation is almost always human. Numbers are numbers. Can you use them to make a point by being selective or ignoring other factors? Sure. But literally taking statistics like sacks(with league ranking), sack rates(with league ranking), adjusted sack rates, QB Hits, QB pressures, etc and putting them out to specifically isolate pass protection, that is pretty cut and dried. It's how these units performed over 16 regular games and that should give a pretty damn good idea of how they played and a very good idea of how they matched up historically.

So, no, at the moment, this is not the worst pass protection unit in Panthers history. Not by those measures, anyway. I'll revisit this at the end of the season and we can get greater detail on exactly how bad they were but right now they aren't the worst. 

And, the only reason I harp on this is because people get into the habit of using hyperbole too much. Everything isn't always "the greatest ever" or "the worst ever." 

Stat judgments aren't inherently faulty, but they're not inherently reliable either. Even David Tepper admits that.

Sometimes they can be used to prove something you believe, whether it's actually true or not. Sometimes they can make you think something that isn't real. That's why I don't like to rely on them either way, even if they support what I think.

I will agree with you that people really do overuse the "best and worst ever" thing. That's kind of annoying

[kungfoodude]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I've seen a lot of people ask the question "What benefit is there to putting Will Grier out on the field?"

My return question would be what benefit is there to putting Kyle Allen out on the field for two more games?

I'm probably one of the biggest advocates of "wait and see" you could find. But I've waited, and I've seen.

Now I'd like to see something else.

His point about simply doing it to appease the fans is valid. That decision should not be made on that basis. However, we all question the soundness of the coaching staff's ability to make roster choices. 

At this point, if Allen continues to play badly and Grier continues to sit, how do we just not assume Grier is not capable of playing in the NFL? If he isn't capable of playing as a third round draft pick, why in the world did we take him?

[kungfoodude]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Stat judgments aren't inherently faulty, but they're not inherently reliable either. Even David Tepper admits that.

Sometimes they can be used to prove something you believe, whether it's actually true or not. Sometimes they can make you think something that isn't real. That's why I don't like to rely on them either way, even if they support what I think.

I will agree with you that people really do overuse the "best and worst ever" thing. That's kind of annoying

I understand you have a healthy skepticism of statistics but what possible fault could you find with using the statistics I mentioned as a reference? How are they not a perfectly valid method of isolating pass protection?

 

Hyperbole gets frustrating as do all the definitives. I guess it is a symptom of the other sicknesses that society is struggling with.

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Seriously? We were using today’s game to disprove what people (including me) had posted before this game. How is it cherry picking saying that BEFORE this week he had a lot of success (6-1, losing at the half yard line at GB)? I didn’t see the future so I couldn’t include a game that didn’t happen. I was just posting why we were saying that Allen was two QBs. Really awful under pressure and decent not under pressure.

I’m not even defending Allen, he was terrible yesterday and it was by far his worst game with no pressure.

If you want to include yesterday’s game then he’s 6-2 with 5 INTs with 3 or fewer sacks and 0-4 with 10 INTs with 5 or more sacks. Even including this week’s outlier, it’s still pretty obvious that his biggest issue is too much pressure. He can’t handle it well, although in both losses he did play better at the end and we did almost come back in both. So maybe as long as he’s not getting slaughtered like when Little gave up 14 pressures and 2 sacks in the first Atlanta game, he might have a wee bit of potential to become a solid backup.

Well he also only threw 1 INT when he was sacked 7 times(highest in his career) against Washington. But, I'd hate to just cherry pick and all....