oldmanfan

Then what are they doing? People are explaining to you why their methods can be questioned, but you're not explaining what they want to accomplish with their site. When you use numbers to compare variables, that is statistical analysis by definition.

I will respectfully disagree. I have said here many times, and some disagree, that there is a difference between accuracy and precision. The pass that was the pick 6 is a perfect example. It was accurate, it hit the WR in the hands. Accuracy is how close you are to a given target, , and by any measure that pass was accurate. It could have been more precise, i.e. hitting a specific spot. Now from my measure that throw could have been maybe 4 inches more to the left. But I'm sorry, NFL WR's who get hit right in the hands (and the pass was low, where it should have been away from the defender) get paid to catch that pass. To somehow conflate that with some of the terrible Peterman picks is just looking to be overly negative, in my opinion. The bad snap. Snaps are between a C and QB. It looked to me (and to Gannon) that the snap was on the C. But again to place all the blame on Allen when, at the least, a poor snap involves both parties. The other pick. A tipped ball which is a crap shoot. And the other fumble that was on him as a said above. Three fo the four issues were not truly his, but if you watch the half objectively you see that the team was moving very well offensively, and some dumb luck and dumb penalties such as Feliciano kept them from scoring. Your conclusion that he was Petermanesque, that it was one of the worst halves of football ever by a Bills QB, and so on, is just over the top. I go back to 1960 with this team and there have been plenty of QBs that have had worse halves. If you can, go back and watch the replay, look at every throw he made, then tell me he was inaccurate and so on. If you're being objective you'll find he wasn't.

To me the issue with any such assessments is trying to put a quantitative assessment on qualitative data. Others have made very cogent points about the statistical limits inherent within the PFF analysis. The biggest to me is that you are relying from what Gunner says on one primary analyst to do the grading, then reviewed by whatever a lead person is. If I am reviewing a paper on scoring say tissue reactions to a given treatment (as I do commonly when reviewing scientific manuscripts), I need to see a measure of inter and intra-observer bias. Intra-observer bias = how reproducible is an individual's grade if you have him look at the same sample multiple times. Interobserver = how two or more different observers agree on the grade of an individual assessment. Without knowing that, without knowing the training of the observers, without understanding how they know or assume the specific role for a given player on a given play, I just don't see how this kind of information can be that useful. I wonder if the teams who subscribe are using it simply to compare to their own assessments, using it as a source of film for their use, et. If the numbers are not definitive then I'm not sure what the value is of them supplying the numbers they supply. I'm curious as to how you think teams should use this kind of data then.

This to me is way, way off base. I refer you to my previous post above, but to comment on stuff here I'm sorry, but when you hit an NFL receiver in the hands - in the hands- and he pops it up that is not a pick that is entirely on the QB. It simply is not, and claiming it is is just dumb. The fumble on the snap. Morse hiked the ball into himself it appeared; it is not a fumble if you never even touch the ball. The fumble on the sack entirely on Allen; he has to learn to take the sack and protect the ball. And the other pick was a deflection and it's a crap shoot when that occurs. To compare that half to Peterman, to claim it is one of the worst halves ever by a Bills QB, is so over the top it's ridiculous. Bad breaks are not poor performance. You ignore the fact that they were moving the ball down the field for most of the half is simply looking for reasons to be negative. You claim you want to see improvement in seeing receivers open downfield (checked, although he could get the ball out sooner sometimes), avoiding foreseeable interceptions (the throw to the corner where it should have been picked is a throw he can't make-see my commentary above), improved accuracy (anyone who watched that game and can't see how accurate he was is either blind or refuses to see), better decision making (he went through progressions and di throw it way more - even Gannon commented on how he was doing that). So for the most part he showed improvement in the areas you wanted to see, and that makes him Petermanesque??? The kid did a lot more good than bad the other day. He did some bad things, he'll continue to do some bad things as young QBs do, but hopefully at much lower frequencies. Yet some around here want to apparently crucify the kid for reasons that remain a mystery.

Why do we say this. Because you're being ridiculous. See my post above, and then see what you wrote here. You claim he made way to many mistakes and then cite ONE PASS. Do this. go back and actually watch the game. Go back and chart each throw, hen tell me he made way too many mistakes. Tell me he was inaccurate. If you do, it will confirm you simply want to slam the kid for no reason.

First things first. For the life of me I have no idea why or how Michael Lombardi has been elevated to some kind of NFL savant. Second, for any of these articles that show up, either positive or negative, the first question that should come to mind is this: did you actually watch the game? Not just highlights, not just looked at the box score, but did you actually watch the entire game? If you actually watched the game, and if you are truly interested in an objective evaluation of Allen as opposed to showing your confirmation bias (i.e. you have already decided he is either inaccurate, careless, clueless or all the above), then this is what you would have seen. Allen unlike last year stayed in the pocket for the most part and went through his progressions, unlike last year when he was running for his life, and sometimes doing that prematurely. If you actually watched his passes you will see that he was very accurate, delivered the ball right where he wanted. On the pick 6, he knew he had to protect Beasley by coming in low, and he did. It may have been 4 inches outside, but when you hit an NFL WR in the hands they normally catch the ball and don't bounce it straight up into a defender's hands. He also did a good job for the most part (exception below) throwing it away instead of trying to be a hero when he needed to do so. So from a read and accuracy perspective Allen looked much improved the other day. Now as for negatives, he still thinks his arm strength can let him get away with things he can't get away with in the NFL. The almost pick down near the goal line was a classic example. He is scrambling and while on the run tried to hit Brown, and should have been picked. He has to learn you can't do that in the NFL. As for the other pick nullified by penalty, took a shot into double coverage; also not well advised but after watching the replay last night I think it's very possible he saw the flag and/or penalty and took a free shot knowing he had one. As for the fumbles, one was not him - it is not a fumble of your part if you never touch the ball. The one on the sack he has to learn to just wrap the ball up and take the sack. He is a young QB, he is going to by definition do some dumb things. What you hope is that with experience the frequency of dumb things declines. But we should all fully expect as the season goes along to have moments where we scream at the field or TV NOOOOOOOO when he make a dumb decision. That is called learning, my friends. So what I saw, and anyone who actually watched the game should have seen, is a young QB figuring it out. You should have seen progress in his reads and in standing in the pocket delivering accurate passes. You should have seen the impertinence of youth at times. But you would only see this if you actually watched the game. Which is what makes the commentator stuff so maddening, because you know some guys either don't watch, or refuse to let their eyes change their opinions. The guy on mad dog sports from 6-10, don't know his name but I listened for a bit while in the car last night. And he said that you could ignore the bad game Mayfield had Sunday, because he clearly is the best of the 4 first round Bs from last year. That Jackson because of his game is the second best. And Allen, despite the moxie coming back, despite showing well all game? According to him he's the worst of the four and will never change. When you hear this kind of stuff, when you see sites like the PFF drivel saying he and Singletary were rated poor, just ignore them, good or bad. They have agendas and refuse to let data change them.

I don’t place any stock in this pff stuff good or bad. But my eye test tells me Oliver looked pretty good for his first NFL game.

Don’t care about these at all.

I usually don’t like to bring up my past posts to avoid seeming boastful, but in a thread before the season I indicated I wasn’t worried about the Jets because they have Gase as their HC. Some guys top out as coordinators and have no business being a HC. Gase is a prime example.

He may have been given 4 turnovers but was only responsible for two. You hit a WR in the hands and he knocks it up in the air that ain’t the QB. When the C hikes the ball into his own thigh and you never even touch it, the fumble ain’t on the QB.

Just watching the replay now and on that almost pick Allen was signaling the penalty as soon as the play was done. Is it possible he saw the hold and took a chance knowing it was a free shot?

Didn’t wrap him up. Lots of teams have that problem with Bell.

Then you go find them. Where are they, because every team in the NFL is looking for them. What did they do? They signed a good C in Morse, they signed two guys with experience in the middle with Long and Feliciano, drafted a young promising lineman in Ford in round 2, brought in Nseke at a tackle who had showed well when given an opportunity. Brought in a solid veteran blocking TE in Smith. I don't mind warranted criticism, but you're just way off base here. This is a problem for the entire league, finding quality O linemen, and you make it sound like it's a walk in the park. I will say again, signing this many O linemen to give Allen more protection and to provide more depth is a highlight of the offseason, not a lowlight.

I’ll comment specifically then. Your comments about the O line are absurd. The single best thing Beane did in the offseason was sing so many O linemen in free agency. I don’t know how much you watch other teams, but there is a dearth if O line talent available. By signing these guys he turned a liability last year into a non-liability. It is not a great O line but it protected its young QB well yesterday. As for smurfs he gave Allen two veteran WRs that each showed good things yesterday including the game winning throw. Did you happen to look at Brown’s stats yesterday? I thought not. I’ll stop there but could continue for a while. This should be enough to rebut your post.

Yawn........

Unstoppable? No. Very difficult to stop? yes. Let's face it, you have a team with the GOAT at both HC and QB. Plus perhaps one of the top 5 O line coaches of all time, plus a guy in McDaniel who should realize his purpose in life is to be an OC and quit thinking about being a HC. As long as those guys are there, they are going to be extremely difficult to beat. It is what it is. This Pats era will go down as the greatest dynasty ever in pro sports. Can the Bills give them a game? Possibly. Our DBs are among the best units in the league, and if the line can get pressure up the middle we have a puncher's chance to slow them down. But odds are slim. I just take it as a given each year that we lose two games to the Pats.

As much as I detest the Fish, this is just not a good look for the league.

It’s where the ball was. And I agree the ball got over the line.

I think Oliver had some good push on the pocket.

I interpreted your comment to mean you agreed with the OP who feels Gore should not be playing. I think we agree Gore should be playing a complementary role.

You have to feel a little sorry for Rosen. But as one who lived through the 70’s I have no sympathy for the Fish.

You said you don’t care about the player he was but the player he is today. Today was one game. I think that is an over-reaction to today’s one game, unless I am misinterpreting your use of the word today. One game. One game. One game.

The OP said he should be gone based one one game. I don’t think you toss a HOF back off the team based on one game. Of course he’ll be a complementary guy. That’s his role. Why are you even trying to argue here?

So an N of one game means something to you?

Taking a guy that will go into the HOF and throwing him under the bus because of one game may define the word overreaction.