billsfan1959
-
Posts
6,352 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by billsfan1959
-
-
2 hours ago, BillsfaninSB said:
Not sure how you can say the ball was a little behind him and then say it was 100% on McKenzie.He tripped because he had to adjust to a ball behind his body. Was the ball catchable? Probably. But it was not all on him that’s for sure.
If Diggs did that no one would be talking about it now.
I didn't say the ball was behind him. I said it looked like it was a little behind him only because McKenzie tripped and fell forward before the ball got to him. I am not a McKenzie basher and have never written a bad word about him. But that was on him. I also posted about the ball that went right through Diggs' hands in the endzone in the Ravens game thast should have been a TD as well.
You can see it however you see it. For me, if McKenzie doesn't trip and fall forward that pass is on the money and a TD.
You can see where the ball is in this picture. McKenzie has already tripped and is going to the ground, forcing him toi reach up and back - which makes it appear the ball was behind him. If he stays on his feet, the ball is right there.
-
On 10/18/2022 at 1:48 PM, BillsfaninSB said:
I understand the concern about his body of work this year but I’m not convinced the fumble and the TD drop was 100% him.
It seemed like Josh had to pitch that ball to him sooner than expected. He had a wall of Chiefs in front of him. The play design may have required more time and the o-line didn’t do their job.
The pass was behind McKenzie. It reminded me of the 2020 Barkley pass against the Pats that broke Beasley’s leg.
The pitch play was just awkward all the way around.The pass appeared to be a little behind McKenzie only because he tripped and fell forward. If he stays on his feet that is a TD every time. That was 100% on McKenzie.
He didn’t have a good game. I’m not into demeaning his intelligence; however, he certainly deserves all the criticism he is receiving for his play.
-
19 minutes ago, JayBaller10 said:
Feels like you’re being contrarian for contrarians sake. I did list the categories where Allen fell short amongst his peers, but didn’t look for and post the numbers. I don’t have the energy for that but if you’re interested in finding them, they’re out there.
Last time you asked me to provide a report backed with stats that explained why he’d be an outlier if he became a franchise QB and I did, but you then proceeded to dismiss everything that was written and researched. Nothing I can do about that.
As far as the comparable argument, the NFL wants to find “the next Josh Allen,” but those players don’t come from comparable situations because first and foremost they almost always come from Power 5 schools. I suppose you could fault the reports for not taking Allen’s numbers and comparing him to QBs who were only outside of the Power 5, but what would that prove? Those guys don’t play in the NFL. The data for those players who fail to make it is as long as the sport has been in existence. He had to be compared to those who were being drafted, which were most likely QBs who played at Power 5 programs. And as I said before, Allen was 2nd team All Mountain West Conference, so there was another QB in that conference in similar circumstances that they felt was more deserving of first team. How did Allen’s numbers compare to that guy?
I am not arguing just to argue. I dismissed the stats you listed because they had no predictive value at an individual level. It is that simple. I gave numerous examples to explain my position. Group statistics have their value, but not in the manner you want to use them.
For example, when you list a category that Allen fell below his peers, say completion %, did you find any research that broke down every variable that affects completion % for every QB being compared? Of course not, it would be an almost impossible task. So, saying he fell below his peers in completion % says nothing about why - which, ultimately, is what really matters in starting to evaluate a specific individual. You cannot get the "why" from the statistics you cited.
In the end, we can just agree to disagree.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, JayBaller10 said:
As I said before, I don’t disagree about Allen’s completion percentage, or with your thoughts in general, stats can never be an absolute predictor… but they do provide historical significance.
Those who didn’t believe in Allen didn’t only use his low completion percentage, they used his paltry numbers against Power 5 teams, his limited number of 300 yard games, and his low number of total TDs. It wasn’t just one stat that said Allen isn’t likely to be successful, it was many. To that end, because no one from his background has gone on to do the things he does in the NFL, he became an outlier for those predictive stats. You can disagree with that notion, but the evidence is there. All those asking “can [insert name here] be the next Josh Allen?” Well, only if the situations are comparable (which most likely they’re not) and chances of being the next Josh Allen are incredibly small.The bolded points:
(1) Don't just say there were many stats, list them. I guarantee they have no predictive value at an individual level.
(2) Bingo! The situations and other specific variables have to be comparable. That rules out group statistics. Thank you.
-
14 minutes ago, SACTOBILLSFAN said:
And my entire point was that Josh Allen defied those statistics, making him a statistical outlier and a total unicorn in my opinion. But, throwing out historical data, especially as the college game and NFL game get more and more alike, is foolish and no NFL scouting department would do that.
We can agree to disagree. I will leave it on these points:
(1) How in the world did Allen defy statistics that said absolutely nothing at all about whether or not he would be successful?
(2) NFL Departments have advanced statistical capabilities run by people who understand science, statistics, and that historical group data says nothing about an individual.
(3) Are you defying the statistics if you live into your 80s or 90s because historical group statistics say the average male dies at 72? Or does your genetic make-up, your diet, your excercise regimen, stress levels, and all those other personal variables actually say your odds of living into your 80s or 90s is quite high?
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, JayBaller10 said:
Yeah, we had this discussion before, remember? No statistic anyone presents can be an absolute predictor of success or failure, but it does give a comparison relative to that player’s peers; those who fit within that specific group.
If we had a stat that said “every collegiate basketball player who shot 45% from the 3 point line in college, would go on to shoot at least 38% in the pros, but no player who shot less than 35% in college would go on to shoot better than 40% in the pros,” that would be a group statistic and anyone who shot less than 35% in college and became a career 40+% shooter in the pros, would then be an outlier. Allen’s stats in college presented him as an outlier relative to his peers. It wasn’t to say he’d be a guaranteed bust (as many claimed), but it was to say the chances of him being a franchise QB were much less likely based on this data.
I had this argument over and over with people back in 2018. The fact is that Allen's completion % in college said nothing about him being less likely or more likely to be successful. The reason for that is there so many variables, specific to each individual QB, that go into completion %, that placing them in groups soley based on completion % and using that placement as being predictive of success or failure is idiotic - and certainly not statistically sound.
Again, group statistics may tell you that 80% of QBs in a specific group are likely not to be successful. However, they cannot tell you which QBs in that group will be in the 80% group that will be unsuccessful - or the 20% group that will be successful. That is where specific variables unique to each individual comes into play.
-
1 minute ago, SACTOBILLSFAN said:
I've stated multiple times why I feel Josh has defied past statistical markers. If you don't think teams look at historical data to project a player's future, I don't know what to tell you, but I can also tell you the draft nerds on the internet that only box score scout, could never have predicted this outcome for him, because all they do is use stats to predict future results. That is also why many of these same internet refuse to admit they were completely wrong.
The reason the Bills hit a homerun by picking him and completely altered the trajectory of the franchise is because the FO got to know Josh Allen as a person and competitor, which can't be measured. You combine his clear desire to improve with a freaky tool box of physical gifts and you get the odds on favorite for MVP in 2022.
No, I don't believe Beane hesitated at all with Allen because of historical data on QBs who had less than a sub 60% completion rate in college: (1) Because he is smart enough to know it has no bearing on Allen as an individual and (2) He and his staff went through all of the data specific to Allen at Wyoming and understood that a low completion % does not equal innacuracy.
Meeting with Allen is one of the ways in which they gathered data specific to him and is the core of my argument. It is the individual traits and characteristics (both physical and mental), along with environmental variables, that ultimately determine whether or not a QB is successful - not group statistics.
That was my entire point. Group statistics are not very meaningful at predicting individuual results.
-
1 minute ago, SACTOBILLSFAN said:
Josh had a 56% completion percentage in college, the largest outlier for improving completion percentage, before Josh, was Kyle Boller, who went from 47.8% (lol) to 56.7% in the NFL. Overall Josh has improved from 56.2% to 62.2% and that's including his rookie year. If you just use Josh's years as a fulltime starter he's completing 64.4% of his passes which is an 8.2% improvement over his college stats. That, by definition, makes him a statistical outlier.
Saying that most QBs with a sub 60 completion % in college don't make it in the NFL is a group statistic based on an incredibly small data pool. Again it says nothing about the individual. It's like actuarial data used by insurance companies. Group data may indicate that the average age of death for men in the US is 72; however, all of the data they base it on says nothing about how long you, as an individual, will live.
By that same argument, you could say every QB that became a successful NFL QB "defied statistics" because the vast majority of QBs drafted, even in the 1st round, end up average or below at the NFL level.
Again, group statistics have no predictive ability at the individual level and there is absolutely no statistical data that could predict whether Allen was going to be successful or not.
-
1
-
-
Just now, SACTOBILLSFAN said:
What he's done is absolutely unprecedented. He defied statistics in every conceivable way, but statistics cannot quantify a player's work ethic. Josh is a physical freak but that pales in comparison to his desire to improve and win and I think it's why he'll age incredibly well.
No he did not. Please show me any statistic that indicated Josh Allen, as an individual, was not going to be a successful NFL QB.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, JayBaller10 said:
I said it before, I thought we were in trouble when we drafted Allen. It was a traits only pick, no player in CFB history with his stats went on to have great success at the NFL level. He was an All 2nd team MWC player (why not first, I asked?) and had dreadful numbers against every Power 5 team.
When I heard part of Beane’s process was to look at Allen run a play and think “where would Rosen throw here?” Again I thought, “uh oh.”
When I saw his play at Wyoming, I didn’t think he had the mind that could make the game look easy for him. I didn’t audibly “boo” the pick, but did shake my head - but like all draft picks, including Whitner and Maybin, I supported him and hoped for the best. And I’m glad I and the rest of those pessimistic fans were incredibly wrong.Josh Allen is one of one, the first player to greatly defy some of the analytical reports that were put out on him prior to the draft (which drove some statisticians to hate him until recently). “Is [insert name here] the next Josh Allen?” No, most likely not.
He actually didn't defy any statistics. (1) The pool of comparable players is so small that any data drawn is relatively useless, (2) Any statistics that do exist are group statistics and have pretty much no predictive utility on an individual level, and (3) There simply isn't any data encompassing all the individual variables that go into determining who will or will not become a franchis QB - or even a successful NFL QB.
The argument that he "defied" statistics is tantamount to saying "nobody saw this coming," both of which seem to be uttered by people who were wrong about him.
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, eball said:
Not to reopen old wounds, but this has been discussed ad nauseum.
A -- Josh was a late bloomer
B -- Josh didn't grow up being groomed to play QB, and therefore didn't have the same coaching and reps other high profile recruits had going into college (he wasn't even recruited)
C -- Josh got hurt in his first game at college (shoulder)
Anyone who looked closely at the player, beyond the stats, saw what type of kid he was, what athletic ability was there, and what mental ability and drive were there. It was always going to take some time to let "playing the game" catch up.
I'd glad Beane and staff did their homework and didn't rely on the analytics gurus who only look at box scores.
People didn't want to look closely. They just bought into lazy narratives.
Beane didn't "luck" into Allen. He didn't use all those resources to select a QB at #7 that didn't have what he believed were the traits, abilities and potential to be a franchise QB.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, BUFFALOBART said:
This is a new beginning for the Bills, since 2018.
Take the Von Miller approach:
Burn it. Burn it all down....
it is a good philosophy. I actually am not one that tends to hang on to negative emotions. However, there are certain things that still stay with me to some degree.
But not enough to keep me from enjoying the renaissance taking place with my team...
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, Toledo Bill said:
Is there anything more irritating to those of us that suffered thru their “perfect season” (and annual celebrations after undefeated teams lose) than to hear about the 50 year anniversary of that team?
I doubt it is just me that gets annoyed over this.
I will pause my hate of the Dolphins for a brief moment to say that a perfect season is an incredible accomplishment. Nothing but respect for achievements like that.
With that said, my hate for that team is now back on. To be honest, I am still more irritated at losing 20 straight games to that f*****g team.
I wish they would never win another game...
-
1
-
1
-
-
Bills Rule with Rare Offense/Defense DVOA Combo
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-analysis/2022/bills-rule-rare-offensedefense-dvoa-combo
QuoteThe Buffalo Bills' win over the Kansas City Chiefs may have been close on the scoreboard, but it wasn't quite as close on the spreadsheets. The Bills have strengthened their lead over the rest of the league in Football Outsiders' DVOA ratings after earning 50.7% DVOA for this win. In fact, the Bills are leading the league in a way we haven't seen in 19 years. They are currently the top NFL team in both offense and defense. Oh, and the Bills also have a top-five special teams unit, just for kicks. Literally.
It is really, really rare for a team to be No. 1 on both sides of the ball. How rare? The last team to end any week of the regular season on top of both offense and defense was the 2003 Tampa Bay Buccaneers after Week 6. Yes, that's 19 years ago, the first year Football Outsiders was in existence. Using the current version of DVOA, both the 1987 San Francisco 49ers and 2001 St. Louis Rams finished the regular season peerless on both sides of the ball. However, there are only nine other weeks in DVOA history where a team was No. 1 on both sides. That's 11 weeks total out of 42 different NFL seasons going back to 1981.
Current DVOA (Top 16)
-
54 minutes ago, bobobonators said:
Id like to have a general convo about what happened yesterday to end the first half.
Yesterday we squib kicked it which I was okay with although it still gave them decent field position.
1. Do we think this is the right approach in that situation? Or
2. Do we think it would be better for Bass to kick it as high up as he can so the ball stays inbounds but ends up inside the 20?
On the defensive side. I hate when we kind of go in prevent mode to try and limit the big play. Time and time again we see how we can give up 15-20yd plays in a few seconds.
1. Should we try bringing more pressure in these situations or bringing the secondary closer to the LOS so we aren’t giving them such a cushion underneath? Or
2. Did we do everything right on the defensive side?
I was bothered that we were able to give up 3points again in such a short amount of time. Imagine if that had been the 4th quarter and thats how we lose? We need to have a better approach in these situations.
Kudos to buttlicker for making that 60+yd FG but again 3 points in 16 seconds. I think the main issue may have been they only had to go 28yds so perhaps the answer is on kickoff. We need to pin them back further and then on defense we can’t just give them a cushion or be conservative. We still need to attack. Im not quite sure.
Thoughts?
Giving up 29 yards in 16 seconds to Mahomes isn't exactly a monumental defensive failure.
Right before that, KC gave up 96 yards in 73 seconds for a TD.
Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes are in their own class - and they do those kinds of things.
-
1
-
-
The Josh Allen-Patrick Mahomes Cinematic Universe
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/walkthrough/2022/josh-allen-patrick-mahomes-cinematic-universe
QuoteWhat Happened: There comes a point in many superhero epics where the good guy and bad guy just stand there and shoot their mighty light beams at each other.
You know the scene: hero and villain unleash their different-colored cosmic-powered special effects, which collide halfway between them in a roiling explosion. Both parties grunt and grimace in search of more power, but neither power ray overwhelms the other. If you watch a lot of superhero/anime movies and cartoons, you probably yawn through the beam-on-beam battle: you know that hero and villain are equally powerful, and you have seen the light show before. (In anime, it's probably recycled animation.) You just want to see how the conflict gets resolved so you can move on to the next chapter of the saga.
That's what the Bills-Chiefs game was like. Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes held back none of their optic blasts or omega rays. But the Chiefs and Bills kept driving into each other's territory and making mistakes: a fumble on a silly pitch play, an end zone interception, some fourth-down stops, a missed field goal, etc. There was plenty of spectacle, but we have seen it all executed a little better in earlier installments of the trilogy.
Allen finally blew the CGI budget on the final Bills touchdown drive, going full Kryptonian on a 16-yard rumble before firing a 14-yard guided touchdown missile to Dawson Knox. Mahomes tried to snap his fingers and undo reality but discovered that Bills defender Taron Johnson had intercepted the Infinity Gauntlet.
Elated? Mildly disappointed? Either way: the studio plans to release another sequel in late January.
What it Means: The Bills are the best team in the NFL. The Chiefs are the second-best team in the AFC. That's the problem with long-running superhero franchises: they rarely break any new ground.
-
1
-
-
So, all we need to do is put some ping pong tables in their locker room when we play them Week 15?
-
1
-
1
-
-
Wishing him a full recovery and a healthy life first - and all the best if/when he returns to the field.
-
7
-
-
Just now, Meatloaf63 said:
Understand the situation you are in and the rules you are working under, stay out if the way, and that was hardly an assault. If you think that’s an assault I imagine you probably played girls field hockey. The man just played professional football in a very intense game. I would hope he was emotional and upset at losing.
Actually, what constitutes an assault is pretty well defined.
We didn't have a girls field hockey team, so I had to settle for football, baseball, and wrestling.
-
1 minute ago, Meatloaf63 said:
A lot of people here who never played sports with passion and high emotions. A suspension for that would be ridiculous. Knowing the NFL he will get fined. Hopefully not to much, camera man needs to know how and where he belongs.
A lot of us have and still don't assault people.
Not surprising that your takaway from the incident is to blame the cameraman...
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, BigPappy said:
Relax. He apologized on camera post game. He admitted his emotions got the better of him, and felt genuinely bad about pushing the guy. Ya'll need to stop acting like you don't let your emptions get the better of you and never act out in a manner that is not your best self. At least he owned up to it. Nobody's perfect. More than one NFL commentator mentioned that they were surprised that he acted in that way because he is considered one of the nicest guys in the NFL (not my words, theirs).
There is acting in an unbecoming way when you are frustrated or angry and then there is putting your hands on someone in an aggressive way when frustrated or angry.
I'ts not a fine line...
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:
His justification was that he was frustrated - as if it is normal behavior for most people to knock some stranger to the ground when they are frustrated. And, of course he had to add in that the other guy had some culpability in what happened because he ran in front of him...
I'm thinking nothing could demonstrate that he "felt horrible immediately" better than walking right by the guy he just pushed to the ground...
-
4
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just now, wppete said:
Yeah, that aged well...
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Augie said:
They have the Ravens as a better chance to win the SB than the Chiefs? That seems curious to me.
Yeah, it surprised me too. Particularly after the Ravens' last two games. It might change after tonight's game.
Lil' Dummy McKenzie.........offical team character builder
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
He tripped before the ball was anywhere close to him. Go back to the post you quoted. I added a picture showing McKenzie falling to the ground and the ball is still almost five yards away from him. Watch the All22. The ball wasn’t anywhere close to McKenzie when he tripped.