oldmanfan

I think we're saying the same thing. I agree with what you've said here. I run a clinical lab so I get accuracy and precision of assays. Where I think we disagree is the distance from accepted value. You seem to want to define it to such a small degree (I.e. Hitting a guy right on the numbers) that in reality there would be no real difference between being accurate and precise. The OP defines a wider radius to be accurate.

Accurate is how close you come to a target and precision is him consistently you hit a given spot. The great QBs have both. Thd only way to know if a throw is accurate or precise is to know exactly what the QB is aiming at. Also if you narrow the area in which a throw has to be to be considered accurate, you can narrow it to a point where accuracy and precision are the same. So if say you want to define a WB as being accurate only if he hits a guy right on the numbers, then there's really not much difference.

No. The dot in the red is more precise, not more accurate. That's where you're confusing the two; it's shown right in the label of the diagram. The OP talked about catchable balls. Let's take a WR numbers as the bulls eye. If the QB throws a ball that is "catchable", which I think could be be interpreted as within the catch radius, then it's accurate. But not precise. The OP should weigh in on what he considered accurate. When you say hitting a guy in the numbers consistently, that requires not just accuracy, but precision. When folks talk about fitting a ball into a tight window that's not just an accurate throw it's a precise throw. Allen can stand to be more precise for sure. as for completion percentage by the way, if he throws 30 passes the difference between 52 and 60% is about 2 passes a game. Or two drops or throwaways.

You have the diagram right but the interpretation wrong. I've posted the same one. When you hit a guy in the legs vs. chest it is the lower left hand diagram, high accuracy but low precision. Allen and others need to be more precise, less so accurate. Hitting the bulls eye every time is high accuracy but importantly high precision.

Refer to my previous comments in this thread. Many people confuse accuracy with precision and that includes folks like PFF. If you throw a ball at a WR and it comes in say at knee level that is accurate. But it is not precise. Precise would be putting it right on the guy's hands as he's running so he can make YAC. Allen is accurate as are the other rookies as indicated by the OP. But he could stand to be more precise along with his accuracy. The best QBs have both high accuracy and precision.

Depth move. After FA and the draft one hopes you have better guys, and this guy gets cut.

No. I do not think the Congress should fund the President's proposed barrier, because I don't know what his proposed barrier is because he seemingly changes his mind every day on what that is. My understanding is he wants a 2000 mile long beautiful wall along the entire Southern border. I don't feel that's necessary. I would fund what the professionals suggest is absolutely required in certain areas. I mention the Northern border because if we're going to talk about protecting our country against drugs, potential terrorists coming across, etc. there are miles of unsecured border on our Northern border as well. Should we not also be concerned there? Good point. But one of the arguments given when the statistic about only 6 folks of watch lists crossed the Southern border is that if even one gets by and commits a terrorist act that it's one too many. Should that logic not also apply to the Northern border?

I would if it were just a 2000 mile wall across the entire Southern border. Because that's not needed. I would certainly vote to fund parts of it where absolutely required as I pointed out above. One question on that: would we need a wall in North Dakota or Montana? What is the extent of illegal crossings/smuggling there, I wonder?

Probably right. I am an advocate of voting every single incumbent out of office and electing all new folks who are in the middle politically, with some liberal and some conservative thoughts, and let them get the country back on track. Actually have meaningful debate and compromise for the good of all. I myself? More liberal on social policies, more conservative on fiscal and law & order policies.

That's not really true as far as Trump goes, and you know it. All throughout his campaign it was a big beautiful wall that Mexico would pay for. And now reality is coming home to roost. We should let the DHS/ICE/CBP tell us where precisely it is needed, then fund that. Along with a comprehensive bill that addresses all issues with immigration and border security. And stop with the histrionics about a big beautiful wall from one side, and that it's immoral from the other. Or that one side wants just open borders when they don't, and on and on.

If I were negotiating on the Democratic side, I would say this: we are willing to fund a wall, or steel thing, or fencing, or whatever in areas where there is a critical need and where it is the best solution to illegal crossings. Not a 2000 mile uninterrupted border. That would be part of a larger policy where issues such as increasing enforcement personnel, DACA issues, employer issues, overstayed visa policies, etc. Perhaps you've just identified the real problem.

The president said he'll own it, then he needs to own it. And that means having actual negotiations where eh side gives a little. He needs to give, so do Democrats. quit trying to deflect thinking he has no blame. Both sides have to answer for this nonsense. And blocked what vote? The last vote I recall there were over 90 senators who voted for the CR that the president said no to. Bring the House bill up for a vote; the Democrats in the Senate block that then they should be shot. I would wager that if the House bills opening all but Homeland security wee brought up they'd pass the Senate, then assuming a veto you'd see if the Senate and House override. Which is the way the legislative process is supposed to work. It is likely happening, but not near the extent as at border crossings. Focusing on just a wall trivializes what is really needed: a comprehensive approach to immigration and border security. Why can't it happen though? The people need to demand more of their elected representatives.

For safety I am all for putting a wall up where it will make an impact. That does not mean 2000 miles of wall. Government data shows most drugs, etc. come in through checkpoints, right? How much of the drug problem comes in through the northern border? Should we build a wall between the US and Canada? Both sides shoulder responsibility for this. Both sides have ignored or played political games with the immigration issue for far too long. But shutting down government over a wall is pointless. Put folks back to work, then lock both sides along with the chief executive in a room somewhere until an actual comprehensive immigration policy addressing all issues (like people overstaying visas, employer issues, etc. ) is arrived at. And quit saying you'll shoulder the blame for a shut down, then deflect. You say something, own it.

Once again: when you are filmed saying you own the shut down, people will interpret that to mean you will own the shut down.

McConnell controls the Senate floor. And like it or not Trump said he will own the shut down. Words have meaning, words have consequences. Democrats should have gone to the White House yesterday I would also say.