oldmanfan

That's the job of a GM to be sure and they get fired if they are wrong. I was referring to these columnists who think they're so brilliant.

Just to be even nerdier about the OP's analysis, let's talk about what the sources of problems might be when Allen is not accurate. You have two types of error: systematic and random. Systematic means you have a consistent problem with your measurement system that biases results in a certain way. So let's say your bathroom scale is actually at 5 pounds when it should read zero. That is systematic and generally affects accuracy of measurements. So for Allen to improve his accuracy, is there a systematic error that can be corrected? Possibly, that may be where consistent footwork and release point when throwing could come in. The other source of error is random error. That is truly random and are out of control of the measurement system, and in lab tests, etc. these generally affect precision. There are a number of those that could affect a pass, the wind, whether a guy ran the right route, etc. Just more nerdy things to ponder when looking at the kid's development. I think there are some sources of systematic error he can fix, like throwing short passes with more touch. The random errors could be fixed, for example, by having WRs that actually catch the ball vs. drop it.

See my above comments to transplant. I think Allen needs to work on precision, or putting the ball on a specific spot, more because that would allow receivers to make more yards after the catch and so on. I think his accuracy is fine, but the really great ones like Brees are highly accurate and can put the throw within that accuracy range right on the money., right where they want it. When folks talk about fitting a ball into a tight window, to me you have to be really precise. So from that perspective I think there is significance. I support the view of the OP. Hope this clarifies my thoughts. If you ignore me, then why are you commenting? The distinction is real and can have effects not only in medicine but in hitting specific targets.

Don't mistake my comments on precision and accuracy to mean I disagree with your OP. I actually agree. Allen is accurate in my opinion. and I applaud the work you've done here. I did something similar with a game or two after his injury, went back and looked at how many passes I truly thought were inaccurate, and it wasn't many. It comes down to your definition of accurate. Accuracy is how close to a reference value you come. If you're looking at, say , a lab test, it's measured by standard deviation. For a passer you define it by how close to his target. So for your analysis, you chose criteria that seem valid to me. So let's say for sake of argument hitting a guy on the numbers in the target, and the border of his catch radius is two standard deviations. If he hits the guy on the hands, but not right on the numbers, he's accurate. And I agree with you that's the way to look at it, and presuming you were diligent in your analysis between QBs, which I think you were, then Allen is as good as the other rookies. When I speak of precision, it's how many times you hit a specific spot. So let's say Allen wanted to hit a guy in the numbers, but he hits them outside that, his precision was off. The guys arguing against you do so because they have a faulty view of accuracy. They think you have to hit a pass right where you want to hit it to be accurate. To extrapolate to a lab test, accuracy would have to be within say 0.1 SDs. You'd go broke trying to run a lab that way because that expectation is completely off base. You'd never accept a test as normal, and again to extrapolate you'd never see Allen (or any other QB) as accurate if that's the measure you'd judge by. Your analysis is fine. And one can only hope folks look at accuracy as accuracy and not completion percentage, because that dog just don't hunt.

Kent Hull. Allen needs a C that can anchor the line and tell everyone else what to do.

That's not semantics; there's a real difference

Good stuff. You nail it on precision and accuracy in that the only true way would be off field at a specific target. I have made the statement that Allen needs to be more precise and I agree based one one throw that is not measurable. My statement is directed more at say an entire games worth of throws, where I see receivers having to reach back a bit, or where they make a catch but aren't in position to get YAC. I feel he's accurate on such throws but could be more precise, with the assumption that he wanted to hit a different specific target within the catch radius than he did, such that receivers would be running after catch and such. Thanks for this post.

If you can get another first or second round pick then absolutely

At some point each side is going to have to compromise on this and get the government open. There is no question about that. But to the larger point, yes I do take issue when I have a president that refuses to take responsibility for his own words, or with those who would support that. The substance of the issue is this: there was no crisis or emergency for two years that required a government shut down until one part of the government was taken over by the opposing party. And now it is a crisis that for some reason requires shutting down key aspects of government. It is all political nonsense. It is quite simple really. The President said if he does not get the funding for his wall he would take responsibility for shutting down the government. Those are his words. And words matter. Now he is trying to say it's others fault and not his. So, basically he is telling us we cannot trust him to stick to his word. This, of course, is not exactly a secret about him. But then how do foreign leaders and adversaries trust our government? How do the people trust he will keep his word on other aspects of government? This is a problem. he said it, he needs to own it. And just so you know, it is not partisan with me. When Obama went back on his word about the red line with Syria, I was through with him as well. His foreign policy was feckless because foreign governments knew his word meant nothing.

He based his entire campaign on building a wall and having Mexico pay for it. And he stated on camera when with Pelosi and Schumer that he would take responsibility for shutting down the government. Why should the American public give him a pass on actual statements he's made? I care about them, and most people I know do as well. No, the Senate voted to provide a spending bill with no funds for the wall, that would extend government funding through February. You can try and deflet all you want, but it is the President that said he will take responsibility for closing the government over the wall funding. His words. Do his words not matter?

I read this. What it says is that in the previous Congress the Senate (which was controlled by Republicans) passed a stop gap bill with no funding for the wall, that would fund the government through February. The House, which at the time was also under Republican control, passed a bill with 5.5 billion for the wall. So I don't quite get how the Democrats blocked funding for a wall. If you are referring to the Senate not getting past 60 votes for the House bill, then perhaps that makes sense. But the Senate did pass a bill to keep the government open back in December. Like it or not, you have divided government now, and like it or not when the President met initially with the Democratic leaders, in that now infamous White House meeting captured on camera, he accepted responsibility for closing the government if he did not get his wall funding. His words, in plain view for all to see and hear. And now he wants to say it's not on him. Sorry, but that simply does not fly. Not that Democrats could not negotiate more. I think ultimately the Democrats should agree to funding walls where the experts on border security says they are absolutely essential. They are going to have to give, as is the Executive branch. But the President made his bed, now he has to lie in it. And none of this answers the question of why the vast majority of government could not be opened right now, and allow for more negotiation of Homeland Security budget including the wall. Nor does it answer why until the balance of government changed this was not a crisis or emergency requiring shutting down government until the president got his money, and that it only became an emergency crisis when control of the House changed.

When did the Democrats block the House bill? I have looked all over and see no evidence for this. Show me your source of information on that.

I'd call It grace.

What you do to the least of them, you do to me.

That's a fair interpretation. Let me try to highlight using a clinical assay, something I do every day. Say you are measuring the concentration of substance X, and you know it's 100. And you want to determine accuracy and precision. Accuracy would be how close you are to 100 over a series of measurements and is generally defined by standard deviation if the mean. So I might not have any of the ten measurements come out 100, but if the values are 95,96,97,98 99, 102,103 104 105, 106 then I am accurate and I accept my measurement because it fits within an acceptable SD. Precision is how many times out of ten measurements I hit the same number. So let's take that sample of known value 100. I do ten measurements and each is 90. I'm very precise but I can't accept that test because it is inaccurate. I agree with my friend above that it comes down to essentially what you consider the SD for a QB throws. The OP considers it (I think) within the catch radius. I think that's reasonable, you may not. But for a QB to be really good he had to combine that with hitting a specific spot reproducibly- precision. It's not an either/or necessarily; the greats need both. It wiuld be interesting to watch film with Allen and ask him where he was targeting throws; it would tell a lot about his accuracy and precision. Take one pass to Croom as an example, I think in the last game. Croom was coming over the middle, and the ball was out ahead of him by 2-3 feet. Terrible accuracy at first blush. But what if he told you he threw it exactly where he wanted, but he and Croom were not communicating on the route, he thought Croom was going to keep crossing but Croom thought he was supposed to sit down? Allen gets accused of being inaccurate because it affected his completion percentage, but in reality he threw a good ball. Interesting conversation and has made me think more about my approach to analyzing things.

I think that is likely.

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. My definition of precision is how repeatably you hit a specific value. For QBs it's how oftten you hit the same spot the same time. QBs have to be accurate, but also precise.

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.