oldmanfan

Show me proof either Belichick or Brady use drugs

Then you're just envious.

Not me either. But you can hate them and still acknowledge the greatness of their coach and QB.

Faux dynasty? Please. I sat in the Rockpile for the first ever home game in 1960 when I was a little kid. I was there for the AFL championships and the Hit Heard Round the World. I agonized through the 70's when we lost to the Fish the entire decade. I put up with the stench of the early 80's and celebrated (And cried) during the Super Bowl run. And I've had to watch and suffer through the 2000's, and the terrible decision making by the organization coupled with the rise and dominance of the Pats. I say this all to give some perspective, when I say that I have no love for the Patriots. While the Fish will always be my most hate rival, the Pats are right behind them. I can't stand that they have dominated for so long, and I hate the smugness of Brady and the aloofness of Belichick. But having said that, they are the best coach and QB of all time. You can be a huge Bills fan, you can hate the Patriots, and still acknowledge the obvious; that they are the best that have ever done their jobs in the history of the league, and that they deserve whatever kudos come their way. For me it's like the Yankees of my youth, couldn't stand them, but had to acknowledge they were the best. To not acknowledge the greatness of Brady and Belichick is simply rooted in envy.

They've dominated the league, so by definition they'd dominate a division.

did you watch the game yesterday?

If Gilmore had been in his Bills uni he would have dropped that interception.

Belichick did tonight what he did in the Bills first Super Bowl. Shut down a high scoring offense and completely ourcoached McVay just like he outcoached (along with Parcells) Marv.

Throw it away son

Was Coleman supposed to just stand there?

Lighten up Francis.

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.