oldmanfan

I'd focus on C in free agency, then draft another T and G.

No. Loved Frank but we did not have the D to compete in that game

I would transition Shady to a third down back role.

Correct. The problem with all these measurements is that only the QB knows where he's aiming.

Daboll will get his guy.

Here we go again. I want to lay this out and ask you to respond. I and many others have shown you many times now that accuracy is not completion percentage. We have on many occasions pointed out the factual reasons why, including the extreme number of variables that affect whether a pass is complete or not ( such as if a pass is dropped or receiver runs a bad route). I have pointed out more times than I can count that if one throws 30 passes in a game that if two become complete vs incomplete you go from 52% to 60%. Accuracy is how close you come to a given target, completion percentage is completely different. It is fact. Yet you continue to cling to completion percentage as a measure of accuracy. As I have said before, it's as if you say the sky is purple and despite folks laying out all the scientific and other reasons why it's blue you ignore it and say it's purple. Why do I challenge this stuff? For several reasons. One, I have training in statistics and have seen over a 40 year career how statistics are routinely misused to support a preconceived bias. Two, I charted some games and also looked at accuracy for Allen and my analysis is closer to the OP. Three, I hope my relative expertise in areas of statistics adds something to the discussion. Does Allen need to improve? Absolutely and I have said so. I have pointed out he is accurate but needs to be more precise in his ball placement. He needs more touch on his short throws. Like all young QBs he needs to work on his pre-snap reads and make quicker decisions. So I ask you again: why do you cling to completion percentage as some Holy Grail of accuracy, when so many have show why you are in error?

Looking at Palazzolo's graphs he seems to have a very limited definition of accuracy. Accuracy is how close you are to a target. If you want to say someone is inaccurate then you have to decide how far from the target should be constitute being inaccurate. In statistical terms it's standard deviation; a measure of distance from the mean. If you decide you have to be for example within 0.1 SD of the mean you have little if any margin for error before calling something inaccurate (for scientific data it's usually 2SD that is taken as a norm). The maps shown indicate the numbers on the uniform are the target. And that any throw not hitting the uniform is inaccurate. That's a pretty narrow definition, and would not take into account exactly where the QB was trying to throw it, whether the receiver got to the spot he was throwing to and such. In contrast, transplantfan says an accurate pass is within the catch radius. This to me seems more reasonable; it takes more into account things like the receiver being in the right spot. I don't have access to all their data, but to understand it you'd need to see how they define their terms, how they do measurements, the error in their measurements and such. They may get paid for this; it doesn't mean their methods are appropriate. It is always reasonable to be skeptical of statistical analysis until one sees the methods. I review dozens of scientific papers a year and reject most because their methods and/or analysis is flawed.

I agree. I expect he has some folks in mind.

Wonder who Daboll has in mind, or if he's going to take that on himself.

No biggie. Colts have a ton of cap space and their GM is smart enough to hold onto his O line guys. Look more to teams that have impending cap issues for FAs.

defending crap journalism once again I see.

Why pay attention to this kind of stuff? No draft yet, no free agency signings, nothing. This is yet again an example of the 24/7 news cycle hurting journalism. These guys have to write something to earn their keep, and rather than look for something novel during Super Bowl week of all weeks, he writes this stuff.

If I were Josh Allen I'd ask to sit down with Jim Kelly

Palmer is coaching Allen and helping him. All stop. Quit acknowledging the one poster. You don't continue trying to reason with a child having a temper tantrum, you ignore it.

What an absurd statement.

I did nothing of the kind. What are you talking about?

You keep making ridiculous false comparisons.

If your definition of a coach is that he or she has to work or have worked for a professional team, then you need to lay off the weed for a while.

I don't think you have any concept of coaching. Or teaching.

They put in plates or screws to ensure proper realignment, and to give more strength to the repair. If I recall it's his fibula, which doesn't bear much weight, but if broken near where it articulates with the ankle could be more problematic.gives

You made the claim that they are correlated. You make the claim, then provide the data to back up your claim. And the reason I brought up correlation vs. causation is because you are clueless what correlation actually means. Correlation describes the size and direction (i.e. positive or negative) of a relationship between two variables. Correlation DOES NOT equal causation. A classic example is that there is a correlation between high school test scores and the amount of ice cream that students eat in a given year. Pretty strong positive correlation, with a correlation coefficient of around 0.6. In your view of stats, you would claim that eating ice cream increased kid's test scores. But you would be wrong. Because eating ice cream does not CAUSe higher test scores. What it really means is they have parents that have more disposable income to take kid's out for ice cream, and they also have more disposable income for things like getting kids help in test preparation. Correlation has no real bearing on cause. You claim there is a correlation between accuracy and completion percentage. First, you don't define how you measure accuracy. If you're doing so based on completion percentage then you're basically comparing the same set of data against itself. Which would be really dumb. And then you make the fatal mistake so many make. Even if there is a positive correlation, that has nothing to do with cause. The causes of lowered completion percentage involves many variables, the accuracy of a given pass to be sure, but also defensive aspects, play of the receivers, and many others. But you just go ahead and call those who have a much more comprehensive understanding of things statistical idiots if it will make you feel better. All it does it make you look silly.

Amazing , isn't it?

I wish some folks here would have been around to see the old AFL guys. There were a lot of really talented players on that team.

No, you make an outlandish statement and then can't back it up. I work with statistics every day. You want to claim correlation, show the data. Sow us how strongly they're correlated. Your issue is you don't understand what you're talking about. Read up on the difference between correlation and causation.

Childish. No one is saying that. What we are saying is that accuracy and completion percentage are not related. You claim they're correlated, what's the correlation coefficient? There are a whole host of variables that affect completion percentage that have nothing to do with accuracy. Plus what you seem to be confusing is correlation with causation. Causation would mean there is a direct link to inaccuracy with an incompletion. For individual passes that can be true. As it can be also true that it is because a received dropped a pass, or because the defense made a good play, or because the QB had to throw the ball away. Allen has work to do like most young QBs. He needs to improve his touch on throws. Needs to continue learning to read defenses. But as the OPs exhaustive analysis of each of his games and throws showed, his accuracy is overblown and similar to the other young QBs.